[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Niranjan Rout on 17 March, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 964 OF 2023
*****
1. State of Odisha, represented through
its Principal Secretary to Govt.
Excise Department, Lok Seva Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar
2. The Excise Commissioner, Odisha, Cuttack
3. The Collector, Jajpur
4. The Superintendent of Excise, Jajpur
...... Appellants
-Versus-
Niranjan Rout ...... Respondent
Advocates appeared:
For Appellants : Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash,
Additional Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr. Rabi Narayan Panda, Advocate
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
& MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 17.03.2026
----------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. It is submitted by Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing
Counsel that costs of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) has
already been paid to the learned counsel for the Respondent
W.A. No.964 OF 2023
pursuant to the order dated 10th February, 2026 passed in I.A.
No.2475 of 2023.
3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Respondent submits
that he has received the costs of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five
thousand).
4. A Memo to that effect along with relevant documents
filed by the learned Additional Standing Counsel is received
from the Registry and is taken on record.
5. On the request of Mr. Panda, learned Counsel for the
Respondent and on consent of Mr. Dash, learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the Appellants, the writ appeal is taken up
for final disposal.
6. The State of Odisha and its functionaries have filed this
intra-court appeal assailing the order dated 12th September,
2022(Annexure-1) passed by this Court in WPC(OA) No.356 of
2018, wherein, learned Single Judge relying upon the case of
Rajendra Kumar Nayak Vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. &
others, reported in 2017 (II) ILR-CUT-912, set aside the orders
under Annexures-8, 10 & 11 to the writ petition so far it relates
to the present Respondent and remitted the matter to the
Authorities to consider the case of the Respondent for
regularization in terms of Rajendra Kumar Nayak (supra).
7. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits
that the Respondent was initially appointed as a daily wage
driver on 8th July, 1997 in the Office of the Superintendent of
Excise, Jajpur. The order of engagement was issued in terms of a
W.A. No.964 OF 2023
communication made on 6th May, 1997 by the Excise
Commissioner referring to the proposal for creation of 11
numbers of posts of driver, which was pending then with the
Government. While continuing as such, the Excise
Commissioner, Odisha vide his letter No.7507 dated 20th
October, 2010 requested the Excise Department to place before
the Government for creation of 10 posts of contractual driver to
suitably absorb the daily wage drivers including the Respondent,
who were working as daily wage drivers for more than ten years
and to allow all such drivers appointed on daily wage basis to
draw their salary at par with the contractual employees. Some
intra-departmental communications were made thereafter. When
the matter stood thus, the Government vide letter No.4465 dated
21st July, 2016 conveyed sanction of the Governor for creation
of 9 posts of driver on contractual basis in different excise
offices of the 9 districts including Jajpur with a stipulation that
such newly created posts shall be filled up on contractual basis
as per the Rules prevailing then. Accordingly, the Respondent
was appointed as a driver on contractual basis with the approval
of the Finance Department. Subsequently, the Respondent
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.23788 of 2017 for
regularization of his services and to grant consequential benefits
of service in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Uma Devi(3). The said writ petition was disposed of on 12th
December, 2017 granting the liberty to the Respondent to move
before the Excise Commissioner, Orissa, Cuttack (Opposite
Party No.2 to the writ petition) by filing a representation
W.A. No.964 OF 2023
ventilating his grievances and the Appellant No.2 was also
directed to take a decision on the same keeping in mind the ratio
in Uma Devi(3) case. However, the Appellant No.2 rejected the
representation of the Respondent for regularization of his
services from the date of initial appointment as a driver.
Challenging the said decision, the Respondent approached the
State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.356 of 2018. On
abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal, the said case was
transferred to this Court and was registered as W.P.C(OA)
No.356 of 2018. This Court disposed of the said writ petition
vide order dated 12th September, 2022 with a direction to
reconsider the case of the Respondent in terms of Rajendra
Kumar Nayak (supra) case. Being aggrieved, the said
Appellants have filed the writ appeal.
8. Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits
that the 9 posts of driver were sanctioned by virtue of order of
the Governor on 21st July, 2016 (Annexure-5 to the writ
petition). Hence, the Respondent could not have been
regularized from a date when no sanctioned post was available
in the Parent Department. He also relied upon the case of State
of Odisha and others vrs. Mahendra Kumar Rout (SLP (Civil)
Diary No(s).22699 of 2024), disposed of on 6th September,
2024, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court, taking note of the above,
held as under:-
"3. The submission of the State's counsel is based
on the communication dated 21.07.2016 (Annexure
P/4) which conveys the Government sanction for
W.A. No.964 OF 2023
creation of 9 posts of drivers, in the District Excise
Offices, under the administrative control of the Excise
Directorate. The counsel submits that the High Court's
order dated 12.09.2022 in the W.P.(C)(OA) No. 375 of
2018 (Annexure P/10), if implemented, will have a
huge implication inasmuch as this will mean
regularisation from the date of initial appointment. At
that time, no regular post was sanctioned or available,
for such regularisation.
4. The counsel submits that the State is conscious
of the fact that the respondent has been working as
daily wage driver from 09.04.1997 but since no post
was sanctioned earlier, the regularisation cannot be
ordered from the date of initial appointment.
5. Mr. Aditya Narayan Tripathy, learned counsel
is appearing for the respondent. He submits that by
virtue of long service rendered by the respondent, the
respondent is entitled to the benefit of regularisation.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and
bearing in mind the sanctioning of the drivers posts
w.e.f. 21.07.2016 by the Government, we deem it
appropriate to say that the regularisation of the
respondent should be from the date of posts being
sanctioned (2016) and not from the date of initial
appointment. It is ordered accordingly.
7. With the above order, the matter stands
disposed of.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
closed."
8.1. He, therefore, submits that Hon'ble Apex Court, taking
note of the fact that the Respondent therein could not have been
regularised from a date when no sanctioned post was available in
the Department, held that the Respondent therein would be
entitled to be regularised from the date of sanction of the posts.
W.A. No.964 OF 2023
9. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Respondent submits
that the Respondent was continuing as a driver on daily wage
basis on 8th July, 1997 and had rendered an unblemished service
for more than ten years by the time 9 posts of driver were
sanctioned. Thus, he is entitled to be regularized from the date of
initial appointment. But, he did not dispute the ratio decided in
the case of Mahendra Kumar Rout (supra). He also submits that
the case of Mahendra Kumar Rout (supra) is similar to that of
the Respondent.
10. It is submitted at the Bar that the Mahendra Kumar Rout
(supra) has already been regularised in the meantime w.e.f. 21st
July, 2016 and is receiving all service and financial benefits.
11. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties, this Court has no hesitation to hold that although the
Respondent was initially appointed on daily wage basis w.e.f. 8th
July, 1997 in the Office of the Superintendent of Excise, Jajpur,
but, no sanctioned post was available under the administrative
control of Superintendent of Excise, Jajpur till 21st July, 2016.
Thus, the Respondent cannot be regularised from the date of his
initial engagement. However, he is entitled to benefits only
w.e.f. 21st July, 2016, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mahendra Kumar Rout (supra).
12. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 12th
September, 2022 under Annexure-1 is set aside and it is directed
that the Respondent shall be regularised w.e.f. 21st July, 2016,
and all consequential financial and service benefits shall be
W.A. No.964 OF 2023
released in favour of the Respondent forthwith before the date of
his superannuation.
13. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on
proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated 17th March, 2026/Kanhu
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 19-Mar-2026 15:36:23
W.A. No.964 OF 2023
