[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Prasanta Kumar Swain vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 13 March, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1300 of 2018
Prasanta Kumar Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
Mr. D.K. Pani, Advocate for DRDA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
13.03.2026
Order No.
11. 1. Heard Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a
direction to the opposite parties to regularize his service from the
appointment as Junior Stenographer as against the sanctioned
post and to quash the impugned order at Annexure-11 on the
grounds inter alia that such decision is legally not tenable, hence,
liable to be interfered with and set aside followed by
consequential directions issued in that regard.
3. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to
the appointment letter dated 6th December, 1994 at Annexure-1
to submit that the petitioner was engaged as a Junior
Stenographer on ad hoc basis for the period of 44 days in the
scale pay of Rs.1200 to 2040/- per month. It is submitted that the
pay of the petitioner was fixed with usual DA and allowances as
sanctioned by the Government w.e.f. 19th March, 1998 until
further orders. As per Annexure-3, as further submitted, the
revised pay was allowed in favour of the petitioner. In the
meantime, according to Mr. Pani, learned counsel, the
Governing Body of DRDA passed a resolution dated 17th April,
2007, a copy of which is at Annexure-6 recommending
regularization of service of the petitioner whereafter necessary
clarification was sought for vide Annexure-7 which was received
in Annexure-8 and ultimately, it was followed by the order dated
22nd January, 2009 at Anneuxre-9. The submission is that even
after the direction issued in W.P.(C) No.17506 of 2013, it was
followed by the impugned order at Annexure-11 regularizing the
service of the petitioner in the post of Junior Stenographer on
contractual basis w.e.f. 21st October, 2017. The submission is
that such regularization vide Annexure-11 is against a
contractual post as per the GA Department's notification dated
12th November, 2013 which is not applicable. The further
submission is that the petitioner's service should have been
regularized as he was engaged against a sanctioned post
complying the orders in W.P.(C) No.1672 of 2007 dated 17th
May, 2007 and W.P.(C) No.17506 of 2013 dated 5th April, 2017.
It is finally contended that the petitioner should have been
regularized against a permanent post and not on contractual
basis. In as much as, the notification of the GA Department of
the year 2013 does not apply to him and hence, the impugned
order at Annexure-11 cannot be sustained in law.
4. Referring to the counter affidavit filed through opposite
party No.2, it is submitted by Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the
State that the initial appointment of the petitioner is irregular and
not through any regular recruitment process, hence, therefore, he
was absorbed on contractual basis vide Annexure-11. The
further submission is that both the posts of Junior Stenographer
and Senior Stenographer are deputation posts and hence, such a
regularization of the petitioner could not have been allowed and
therefore, the impugned decision dated 19th January, 2018 vide
Annexure-11 is perfectly justified.
5. Perused the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner.
6. The absorption of the petitioner as against a contractual
post is justified by opposite party No.3 with reference to an order
dated 19th January, 2018 at Annexure-A/3 to the counter
affidavit. It is submitted that by way of a Corrigendum, DRDA,
Jagatsinghpur regularized the service of a driver similarly on
contractual basis and therefore, the petitioner has been absorbed
against the contractual post in terms of Annexure-11.
7. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in
W.P.(C) No.1672 of 2007 disposed of on 17th May, 2007 and it
was disposed of with a direction for the DRDA, Jagatsinghpur to
consider his request for regularization. It was followed by the
order in W.P.(C) No.17506 of 2013 dated 5th April, 2017,
wherein, regularization of service of the petitioner was directed
in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Secretary, State
of Karnataka and others Vrs. Umadevi (3) and others (2006)
4 SCC 1 but ultimately, it has been followed by the impugned
order at Annexure-11.
8. The question is whether the petitioner could have been
absorbed in a contractual post w.e.f. 2017 when he was allowed
to be engaged against a sanctioned post since 1994. In so far as,
the plea of the State is concerned, it is claimed that the petitioner
was not engaged through a regular recruitment and hence, such
appointment is irregular but having regard to the settled legal
position, the same cannot be ground to deny regularization from
the date of appointment order dated 6th December, 1994. It is
made to reveal that the petitioner was initially engaged on ad hoc
basis but thereafter, it was followed by Annexure-3. From the
resolution of the DRDA i.e. Annexure-6, it is further revealed
that the engagement was as against a sanctioned post. Such claim
of the petitioner as above has not been denied by the State. The
fact remains, the appointment of the petitioner against a
'sanctioned post' with a demand for regularization has not been
questioned by opposite party No.3. The only ground upon which
the plea of the petitioner is opposed is on the ground that he has
been engaged not by a regular recruitment process. But the
petitioner has been engaged since 1994 and subsequently, the
scale of pay was revised and such engagement is against a
sanctioned post, the fact which stands not denied by the State.
This Court is of the view that for the earlier direction issued
while disposing of W.P.(C) No.17506 of 2013, opposite party
No.3 could not have denied regularization of the petitioner from
the date of his initial appointment. It is to be reiterated that the
regularization of service of the petitioner cannot be denied on
any such ground of him not being appointed through a regular
recruitment process. Considering the appointment order at
Annexure-1 and the decision of the DRDA, Jagatsinghpur vide
Annexure-3 and thereafter, the recommendation of the
Governing Body of the DRDA vide Annexure-6 and as the
engagement is against a sanctioned post, the Court is of the
considered view that the regularization should have been
directed instead of absorbing him against a contractual post and
that too with effect from 21st October, 2017. Apart from the
decision referred to before, in Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and
others (2024) 12 SCR 1235; Shripal and another Vrs. Nagar
Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025)1 SCR 1427; and Dharam Singh
and others Vrs. State of U.P. and another (2025) 8 S.C.R.
1026, it has been held and observed that the State is to regularize
the services of the employees who are working against
sanctioned posts.
9. For a better appreciation, the relevant extract of the
decision in Dharam Singh (supra) is reproduced herein below:
"11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the
reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi
(Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced.
Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is
not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme
of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's
arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the
employer's own acknowledgement of need and
decades of continuous reliance on the very
workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra)
draws a distinction between illegal appointments
and irregular engagements and does not endorse the
perpetuation of precarious employment where the
work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for
years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of
this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal
v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad5 have emphatically
cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed
as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term
"ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or
the denial of basic parity where identical duties are
exacted over extended periods. The principles
articulated therein apply with full force to the
present case. The relevant paras from Shripal
(supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on
Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or
temporary employees cannot claim permanent
absorption in the absence of statutory rules
providing such absorption. However, as frequently
reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between
appointments that are "illegal" and those that are
"irregular," the latter being eligible for
regularization if they meet certain conditions. More
importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to
justify exploitative engagements persisting for years
without the Employer undertaking legitimate
recruitment. Given the record which shows no true
contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need
for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted
ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify
indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair
practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen
continuously rendered their services over several
years, sometimes spanning more than a decade.
Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in
full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-
despite directions to do so-allows an adverse
inference under well-established labour
jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors
perpetual daily wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in
nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil
ongoing municipal requirements year after year
cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable,
particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor
agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate
to recall the broader critique of indefinite
"temporary" employment practices as done by a
recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of
India3 in the following paragraphs:
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary
employment contracts, as exemplified in this case,
reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely
affects workers' rights and job security. In the
private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to
an increase in precarious employment arrangements,
often characterized by lack of benefits, job security,
and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and undermining
labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted
with upholding the principles of fairness and justice,
bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When public
sector entities engage in misuse of temporary
contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends
observed in the gig economy but also sets a
concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
xxx xxx
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions,
often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While
the foundational purpose of temporary contracts
may have been to address short-term or seasonal
needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism
to evade long-term obligations owed to employees.
These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and
integral to the functioning of an institution are often
labelled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when
their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the dignity,
security, and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as
seen in the present case. This practice undermines
the principles of natural justice and subjects workers
to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the
quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees
often find themselves excluded from opportunities
for skill development, promotions, or incremental
pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles,
creating a systemic disparity between them and their
regular counterparts, despite their contributions
being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed
by temporary employees, effectively replacing one
set of exploited workers with another. This practice
not only perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the
obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
employees are often denied fundamental benefits
such as pension, provident fund, health insurance,
and paid leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security subjects them
and their families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances."
10. In view of the above, considering the response of the
State and the fact that the petitioner's absorption against the
contractual post cannot be sustained on the strength of the
notification in the year 2013 of GA, Department, Government of
Odisha, the conclusion of the Court is that such regularization
shall have to be against a permanent post w.e.f. the date of initial
appointment. Having said that the Court concludes that the
impugned decision as per Annexure-11 regularizing the service
of the petitioner against the post of Junior Stenographer on
contractual basis w.e.f. 21st October, 2017 is liable to be quashed.
11. Accordingly, it is ordered.
12. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 19th January, 2018 at
Annexure-11 is hereby set aside. As a necessary corollary,
opposite party No.3 is directed to regularize the service of the
petitioner in the post of Junior Stenographer w.e.f. 6th December,
1994 on regular basis and to ensure it at the earliest preferably
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. It is further directed that upon such regularization, the
petitioner shall be entitled to consequential service benefits as
admissible to him.
13. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
Judge
RojinaStenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, CTC
Date: 17-Mar-2026 19:17:31
