Orissa High Court
Bhikari Charan Sethi vs State Of Odisha on 2 April, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017
In the matter of an Application under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950
***
Bhikari Charan Sethi
Aged about 40 years
Son of Sri Kumara Sethi
At: Jankia, P.S.: Kanasa
District: Puri
At present staying
At: Malipada Primary Health Centre
District: Khordha. … Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha
Represented though
Commissioner-cum-Secretary
Helath Department
Secretariat Building
Sachivalaya Marg
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
2. National Rural Health Mission
Represented by
Director
At: Unit VIII, Nayapalli
Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 1 of 41
3. Governing Body of Rogi Kalyana Samiti
Primary Health Centre
Represented by
Chairman, Panchayat Samiti-cum-
President, Zilla Parishad
At: Malipada, District: Khordha.
4. Medical Officer (Ayush)
Primary Health Centre
Malipada and Golobai
At: Malipada, District: Khordha.
5. Chief District Medical Officer
Khordha
At/P.O./District: Khordha. … Opposite parties
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Sujata Jena
Advocate
For the Opposite party : Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka,
Nos.1, 3 and 4 Additional Government Advocate
For the Opposite party : Mr. Bibhu Prasad Tripathy
No.2 Senior Advocate
assisted by
Mr. Narayan Bark,
Advocate
P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Date of Hearing : 02.04.2025 :: Date of Order : 02.04.2025
O RDER
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 2 of 41
1. The Petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste Community
and economically weak section of the society, was
engaged to work as sweeper at Malipada and Golabai,
Primary Health Centre (PHC) since December, 2010 on
daily wage basis. Having approached, the Authority
concerned a letter No.1, dated 12.10.2010 was issued by
Medical Officer, Ayush, apprising the Medical Officer-In-
charge of Primary Health Centre (PHC), Haladia, Khurda
about lack of basic amenities and requirement of
sweeper for cleaning the hospital, requested for
appointment of support staff including sweeper for the
Primary Health Centre (N), Golobai, Khurda.
1.1. Accordingly, in the Governing Body Meeting of the Rogi
Kalayan Samiti (RKS), Primary Health Centre (N),
Malipada held on 21.12.2011, the engagement of Sri
Bhikari Chanran Sethi (Petitioner) to work as sweeper on
daily wage basis was considered.
1.2. The petitioner was verbally directed by the Medical
Officer, Haladia to work as sweeper in the Primary
Health Centre on daily wage basis which fact was taken
note of in the Governing Body Meeting as referred to
above. He was allowed to sign the staff attendance
register on each day he worked.
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 3 of 41
1.3. Pursuant to aforesaid resolution of the Governing Body,
the petitioner continued to work in the Primary Health
Centre and he was allowed to work till October 2017.
1.4. The petitioner is stated to have filed representation
before the Chief District Medical Officer (CDMO),
Khordha for taking steps to regularise his service, as his
service was required daily. Since the Authority did not
pay any heed to, the petitioner approached this Court by
way of the present writ petition with the following
prayers:
“In the circumstances petitioner prays that the Hon’ble
Court may be graciously pleased to admit this writ
petition, issue notice to the opp. parties to show cause as
to why the representation of the petitioner for
regularisation of his services and payment of wages has
not been considered as on date and if the Opp. Parties
failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, the
Hon’ble Court upon hearing the parties may be further
pleased to allow this writ petition by issuing a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the
Opp. Parties to regularise the petitioner in the post of
sweeper of Malipada and Golabai P.H.C.And may be further pleased to pass such other
order/orders, direction/directions as may be deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.”
2. Counter affidavit in response to the averments made in
the writ petition has come to be filed on behalf of the
opposite party No.5, namely, Chief District Medical
Officer, Khurdha (“CDMO”, for short).
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 4 of 41
3. Since this matter has been pending since 2017 and the
petitioner is without any livelihood, on the consent of
counsel for the parties this matter is taken up for final
hearing.
3.1. Accordingly, heard Smt. Sujata Jena, learned Advocate
for the petitioner and Sri Dayanidhi Lenka, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the opposite party
Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri Bibhu Prasad Tripathy,
learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Narayan Barik,
learned Advocate for the opposite party No.2 who has
declined to file separate counter affidavit, but sought to
adopt the counter affidavit filed by the CDMO.
4. Smt. Sujata Jena, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner submitted that the opposite parties ignoring the
obligation of the State as envisaged under Article 38 of the
Constitution of India, neglected to consider the plight of
the petitioner, who is engaged to serve the Primary Health
Centre (“PHC”, for brevity) as “sweeper”. It is not denied or
disputed that such work of sweeper is required daily and
perennially without any break.
4.1. She made a reference to the “Revised Guidelines for
Utilisation of Untied Fund, Annual Maintenance Grant
and RKS Grant at different facilities”, of Rogi Kalyan
Samiti (“RKS”, abbreviated) in Public Health Facilities
circulated vide Letter dated 25.09.2008 issued by
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 5 of 41
Mission Directorate, National Rural Health Mission,
Odisha, Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of Odisha and submitted that housekeeping
and cleanliness service are one of the areas which are
identified for annual maintenance grant under the Rogi
Kalyan Samiti Grant. She laid stress on the following
portion of said Revised Guidelines:
“Health Sector reform under the National Rural Health
Mission (NRHM) aims at increasing the functional,
administrative and financial autonomy of various field
units. Accordingly provisions have been made for these
field units at different levels in the form of untied fund,
annual maintenance grant and Rogi Kalyan Samiti grant
to undertake any innovative or responsive facility specific
need based activity.
Suggested Areas where Untied Fund, Annual
Maintenance Grant, RKS Grant can be utilised:
Given below are some of the suggested activities which
can be taken up with the fund. Other than these activities,
RKS may take up any activity based on local specific
needs with the given funds except activities mentioned in
Annexure-A. Each activity planned by the facility should
have clear rationale so that the impact of the untied
fund/annual maintenance/RKS grant can be assessed
distinctively.
***
V) Maintenance of cleanliness, sanitation &
beautification of campus Out-sourcing of hospital
housekeeping and cleanliness services, Ad hoc
payment for cleaning of centres after child birth,
meeting day to day expenses on maintaining
cleanliness viz. Brooms, Bleaching powder &
Disinfectants, Buckets, Mugs, Spade, Waste
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 6 of 41
disposal bins, Monthly/Bimonthly campus cleaning
drive involving local volunteers, wall hanging & clock
at waiting space, clearing of larvicidal measures for
stagnant water, etc.”
4.2. It is, therefore, vehemently contested by Smt. Sujata
Jena, learned Advocate that the opposite parties-
Authorities have acted arbitrarily and left the petitioner
in a lurch.
4.3. Advancing further argument, she would submit that
denial of rightful opportunity to the petitioner to sustain
and survive by providing work the action of the opposite
parties squeezed his right to earn a livelihood, which is
fundamental for their survival and dignity, thereby the
Authorities have caused social injustice. The failure to
regularize the service of the petitioner perpetuated social
inequality and economic disparity, undermining the
constitutional mandate for social justice. The
uncertainty surrounding employment status
demoralised the petitioner leading to destitution.
4.4. She emphatically submitted that seeking to replace the
petitioner with the personnel from outside without
considering the representation of the petitioner and
recognizing his contribution to the welfare of the PHC
since 2010, is unwholesome and such actions are not
expected from model employer, like Health Department.
Therefore, she suggested issue of writ of mandamus for
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 7 of 41
effective and prompt disposal of the representation dated
09.11.2017 (Annexure-5) pending.
5. Sri Dayanidhi Lenka, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the opposite party Nos.1, 3, 4
and 5, opposing the contention of Smt. Sujata Jena,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that there is no provision for regularising a person
working under Rogi Kalyana Samiti on daily wages. It is
stated that since the such post is not a regular
sanctioned post no right to employment could be
claimed by the petitioner. The engagement of the
petitioner is itself “irregular”, which does not warrant
consideration for regularisation in service.
6. Sri Bibhu Prasad Tripathy, learned Senior Counsel along
with Sri Narayan Barik, learned Advocate appearing for
the opposite party No.2-National Rural Health Mission
supported the arguments advanced by the learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the other
opposite parties and submitted that the representation
of the petitioner being kept pending since long, the
Authorities concerned may consider the same, approach
is made by the petitioner with the direction of this Court.
7. In reply to the stand of the opposite parties, Smt. Sujata
Jena, learned Advocate referred to paragraphs 5, 6, 7
and 8 of Vinod Kumar and others Vrs. Union of India and
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 8 of 41
others, reported in (2024) 1 SCR 1230 = (2024) 9 SCC
327, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been
pleased to observe as follows:
“5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this
Court believes that the essence of employment and
the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by
the initial terms of appointment when the actual
course of employment has evolved significantly over
time. The continuous service of the appellants
in the capacities of regular employees,
performing duties indistinguishable from those
in permanent posts, and their selection through
a process that mirrors that of regular
recruitment, constitute a substantive departure
from the temporary and scheme-specific nature
of their initial engagement. Moreover, the
appellants’ promotion process was conducted and
overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee
and their sustained service for more than 25 years
without any indication of the temporary nature of
their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such
temporary engagement being specified, merits a
reconsideration of their employment status.
6. The application of the judgment in State of
Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 by the
High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at
hand, given the specific circumstances under which
the appellants were employed and have continued
their service. The reliance on procedural
formalities at the outset cannot be used to
perpetually deny substantive rights that have
accrued over a considerable period through
continuous service. Their promotion was based on
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 9 of 41
a specific notification for vacancies and a
subsequent circular, followed by a selection process
involving written tests and interviews, which
distinguishes their case from the appointments
through back door entry as discussed in State of
Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1.
7. The judgment in State of Karnataka Vrs.
Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 also distinguished
between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments
underscoring the importance of considering
certain appointments even if were not made
strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules
and Procedure, cannot be said to have been
made illegally if they had followed the
procedures of regular appointments such as
conduct of written examinations or interviews
as in the present case. Para 53 of State of
Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 is
reproduced hereunder:
’53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in State of Mysore
Vrs. S.V. Narayanappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC
23, R.N. Nanjundappa Vrs. T. Thimmiah, (1972)
1 SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan Vrs. State of
Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in
para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in
duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been
made and the employees have continued to
work for ten years or more but without the
intervention of orders of the courts or of
tribunals. The question of regularisation of the
services of such employees may have to beW.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 10 of 41
considered on merits in the light of the
principles settled by this Court in the cases
above referred to and in the light of this
judgment. In that context, the Union of India,
the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to
regularise as a one-time measure, the services
of such irregularly appointed, who have worked
for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts
but not under cover of orders of the courts or of
tribunals and should further ensure that
regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those
vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled
up, in cases where temporary employees or
daily wagers are being now employed. The
process must be set in motion within six
months from this date. We also clarify that
regularisation, if any already made, but not
sub judice, need not be reopened based on this
judgment, but there should be no further
bypassing of the constitutional requirement and
regularising or making permanent, those not
duly appointed as per the constitutional
scheme.’
8. In the light of the reasons recorded above, this
Court finds merit in the appellants’ arguments
and holds that their service conditions, as
evolved over time, warrant a reclassification
from temporary to regular status. The failure to
recognise the substantive nature of their roles
and their continuous service akin to permanent
employees runs counter to the principles of
equity, fairness, and the intent behind
employment regulations.”
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 11 of 41
7.1. It is apt to refer to the anxious consideration shown by
the Madras High Court in N. Karunanidhi Vrs. Union of
India, W.P. No. 12887 of 2016, vide Judgment dated
22.04.2022 made with respect to exploitation of service.
The following benevolent observation has been made by
said Court in favour of employees, whose services have
been utilized by the Government for a long time:
“18. If the Courts cannot give direction for their
regularisation of service, in the constrained legal
scenario what other remedies that are available to
these unfortunate employees, who have been
engaged in service for public purpose, without
having any definite future to hold on? These
petitioners cannot be kept on the tenterhooks
of their employment for years together, by
brushing aside and discarding their concerned
yearning for a definite future, with
unresponsive indifference.
19. A welfare State grounded on constitutional
values, cannot come up with apathetic and
callous stand that despite continued
employment of these petitioners for years
together, no semblance of right is available to
them. Such stand by the State is opposed to
constitutional values as enshrined in Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. The Courts of course have
held that equal opportunity must be provided in
public employment and entry through back door
should be discountenanced. When Article 21, being
violated by the State, action towards its servants,
the consideration of the Government must primarilyW.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 12 of 41
be focussed on alleviating legitimate grievances of
its employees. Even assuming that the recruitment of
these writ petitioners had not been fully in
consonance with the procedure for appointment in
Government services, the fact remained that these
persons have been consciously appointed by the
Government for implementing public projects and the
work has been extracted from them continuously for
several years. It is therefore, not open to the
Government after a period of time to turn around
and contend that these writ petitioners have no right
at all to seek any kind of guarantee for their future.
20. In the opinion of this Court, continued
employment for several years, even on a
projects meant to serve the State as a whole,
certain rights would definitely accrue to them,
atleast to the extent of making a claim for
formulation of a scheme/towards their
absorption. This Court is quite conscious of the fact
that the Government has been benevolent and had
come up with several schemes in the past and
directed regularisation of services of thousands of
employees over a period of time. Such benevolence
ought to permeate to the lowest levels to take within
its sweep the desperate cry of the petitioners as
well. As in the sublime words of the father of nation,
Mahatma Gandhi, ‘A nation’s greatness is measured
by how it treats its weakest members’. Merely
because these writ petitioners have been employed
in the projects, the policy makers may not shut their
mind and close their eyes to their precarious plight
having to serve public purpose but left in the lurch
and unprotected, at the end of the day.”
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 13 of 41
7.2. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr. Prasana Kumar
Mishra Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.11148 of 2005,
reported at 2016 (I) ILR-CUT 373, made the following
observation:
“7. In Binan Kumar Mohanty Vrs. Water and Land
Management Institute (WALMI), 2015 (I) OLR 347
referring to Kapila Hingorani Vrs. State of Bihar,
(2003) 6 SCC 1 the apex Court held that the
Government companies/public sector undertakings
being ‘States’ would be constitutionally liable to
respect life and liberty of all persons in terms of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if
the petitioner has rendered service for around 20
years, keeping in view the ratio decided in Kopila
Hingorani (supra), this Court issues direction to the
opposite parties to mitigate the hardship of the
employees. Financial stringency is no ground for not
issuing requisite directions when there is violation of
fundamental rights of the petitioner. Allowing a
person to continue for a quite long period of 20 years
of service and exploiting him on the pretext of
financial crunch in violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is sheer arbitrariness of the
authority which is highly condemnable.
8. In Narendra Kumar Ratha and Others Vrs. State of
Odisha and Others, 2015 (I) OLR 197, this Court has
taken into consideration the object of Article 16 of
the Constitution of India to create a constitutional
right to equality of opportunity and employment in
public offices. The word ’employment or
appointment’ cover not merely the initial
appointment, but also other attributes like salary,W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 14 of 41
increments, revision of pay, promotion, gratuity,
leave pension and age of superannuation etc.
Appointment to any post under the State can only be
made in accordance with the provisions and
procedure envisaged under the law and guidelines
governing the field.
9. In Prabodh Verma and Others Vrs. State of U.P. and
Others, (1984) 4 SCC 251, the apex Court held that
Article 16 is an instance of the application of the
general rule of equality laid down in Article 14, with
special reference to the opportunity for appointment
and employment under the Government.
10. Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court
in Km. Neelima Mishra Vrs. Harinder Kaur Paintal
and Others, (1990) 2 SCC 746 = AIR 1990 SC 1402
and E.P. Royappa Vrs. State of Tamil Nadu and
Another, (1974) 4 SCC 3. Clause (1) of Article 16
guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in
the matters of employment or appointment to any
office under the State. The very concept of equality
implies recourse to valid classification for preference
in favour of the disadvantaged classes of citizens to
improve their conditions so as to enable them to
raise themselves to positions of equality with the
more fortunate classes of citizens. This view has
also been taken note of by the apex Court in the
case of Indra Sawhney Vrs. Union of India, 1992
Supp. (3) SCC 217 = AIR 1993 SC 477.”
7.3. The case of Prasana Kumar Mishra (supra) was carried in
appeal before the Division Bench, giving arise to W.A.
No.4 of 2016, which was dismissed vide Order dated
11.12.2019. Said matter, being carried further to the
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 15 of 41
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide Order dated
07.08.2020, the S.L.P.(C) No.4945 of 2020, filed at the
behest of Biju Patnaik University of Technology, stood
dismissed.
7.4. So far as regularization of services, in a catena of
decisions the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dealing
illuminatingly with the concept of regularization, in the
case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vrs. State of Jharkhand,
(2018) 8 SCC 238, said as follows:
“The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3)
was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or
illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer
a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in
the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued
with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after
the decision in Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 is a clear
indication that it believes that it was all right to continue
with irregular appointments and whenever required,
terminate the services of the irregularly appointed
employees on the ground that they were irregularly
appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation
of the employees by not giving them the benefits of
regularisation and by placing the sword of
Damocles over their head. This is precisely what
Umadevi and Kesari sought to avoid.”
7.5. In Sunil Barik Vrs. State of Odisha, 2021 (II) OLR 469, it
has been discussed as follows:
“12. As it appears from the record itself, the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the exception
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 16 of 41
carved out in paragraph 53 of the judgment
rendered in Umadevi (3) mentioned supra. Meaning
thereby, against an existing sanctioned vacancy in
the post of Barber, the petitioner having been
engaged by following due procedure of selection in
the post of Home Guard and continued for a quite
long period, which is not disputed by the opposite
parties-State as per the pleadings available in the
counter affidavit and, as such, the petitioner is still
continuing, the same cannot be treated as an ‘illegal
engagement’, rather it may be nomenclatured as an
‘irregular engagement’.
13. In State of Jammu and Kashmir Vrs. District Bar
Association, Bandipora, MANU/SC/1566/2016 =
(2017) 3 SCC 410, wherein a distinction has been
made with regard to ‘irregular’ and ‘illegal’
engagement, referring to the exception carved out in
Umadevi (3) mentioned supra, in paragraph 12 of
the said judgment it has been stated as follows:
’12. The third aspect of Umadevi (3) which bears
notice is the distinction between an ‘irregular’
and ‘illegal’ appointment. While answering
the question of whether an appointment is
irregular or illegal, the Court would have
to enquire as to whether the appointment
process adopted was tainted by the vice of
non-adherence to an essential prerequisite
or is liable to be faulted on account of the
lack of a fair process of recruitment. There
may be varied circumstances in which an ad
hoc or temporary appointment may be made.
The power of the employer to make a
temporary appointment, if the exigenciesW.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 17 of 41
of the situation so demand, cannot be
disputed. The exercise of power however
stands vitiated if it is found that the exercise
undertaken
(a) was not in exigencies of administration; or
(b) where the procedure adopted was
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution; and/or
(c) where the recruitment process was
overridden by the vice of nepotism, bias or
mala fides.”
7.6. In Suvendu Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha, 2015 SCC
OnLine Ori 267, it has been observed as follows:
“9. With regard to the regularization of the services of
the petitioners, a mention has been made in
Annexure-4 that the petitioners being irregular
recruits, their regularization is not permissible under
the State Government Rules. But this condition made
in the restructuring order in Annexure-4 so far as it
relates to the petitioners cannot be applicable in
view of the fact that the petitioners have been
appointed against regular vacancies available in the
regular scale of pay admissible to the post. But in
view of their continued service for more than 10
years, their cases are covered by the ratio of the
judgment of the apex Court in Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 = AIR
2006 SC 1806, wherein the apex Court has held that
the appointments made against temporary or ad-hoc
basis are not to be regularized. In paragraph 53 of
the said judgment, it is provided that irregularW.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 18 of 41
appointment of duly qualified persons against
sanctioned posts, who have worked for 10
years or more can be considered on merits and
steps to be taken as one time measure to
regularize them. In Paragraph 53 of the said
judgment, the apex Court has held as follows:
***
10. The object behind the exception carved out in this
case was to permit regularization of such
appointments, which are irregular but not illegal,
and to ensure security of employment of those
persons who served the State Government and their
instrumentalities for more than ten years. Similar
question came up for consideration before the apex
Court in Civil Appeal No. 2835 of 2015 (arising out of
SLP (Civil) No. 20169 of 2013 disposed of on
13.3.2015 [Amarkant Rai Vrs. State of Bihar, (2015)
8 SCC 265]. In paragraphs 12 and 13, the apex
Court has held as follows:
’12. Elaborating upon the principles laid down in
Umadevi’s case (supra) and explaining the
difference between irregular and illegal
appointments in State of Karnataka Vrs. M.L.
Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, this Court held as
under:
‘7. It is evident from the above that there is
an exception to the general principles
against “regularisation” enunciated in
Umadevi (3), if the following conditions
are fulfilled:
(i) The employee concerned should
have worked for 10 years or more in
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 19 of 41
duly sanctioned post without the
benefit or protection of the interim
order of any court or tribunal. In
other words, the State Government
or its instrumentality should have
employed the employee and
continued him in service voluntarily
and continuously for more than ten
years.
(ii) The appointment of such employee
should not be illegal, even if
irregular. Where the appointments
are not made or continued against
sanctioned posts or where the
persons appointed do not possess
the prescribed minimum
qualifications, the appointments will
be considered to be illegal. But
where the person employed
possessed the prescribed
qualifications and was working
against sanctioned posts, but
had been selected without
undergoing the process of open
competitive selection, such
appointments are considered to
be irregular.’
13. Applying the ratio of Umadevi’s case, this Court
in Nihal Singh Vrs. State of Punjab, (2013) 14
SCC 65 directed the absorption of the Special
Police Officers in the services of the State of
Punjab holding as under:
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 20 of 41
’35. Therefore, it is clear that the
existence of the need for creation of
the posts is a relevant factor with
reference to which the executive
government is required to take
rational decision based on relevant
consideration. In our opinion, when
the facts such as the ones obtaining
in the instant case demonstrate that
there is need for the creation of
posts, the failure of the executive
government to apply its mind and
take a decision to create posts or
stop extracting work from persons
such as the appellants herein for
decades together itself would be
arbitrary action (inaction) on the part
of the State.
36. The other factor which the State is
required to keep in mind while creating or
abolishing posts is the financial
implications involved in such a decision.
The creation of posts necessarily means
additional financial burden on the
exchequer of the State. Depending upon
the priorities of the State, the allocation of
the finances is no doubt exclusively
within the domain of the legislature.
However in the instant case creation of
new posts would not create any
additional financial burden to the State as
the various banks at whose disposal the
services of each of the appellants is made
available have agreed to bear the burden.
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 21 of 41
If absorbing the appellants into the
services of the State and providing
benefits on a par with the police officers
of similar rank employed by the State
results in further financial commitment it
is always open for the State to demand
the banks to meet such additional
burden. Apparently no such demand has
ever been made by the State. The result
is– the various banks which avail the
services of these appellants enjoy the
supply of cheap labour over a period of
decades. It is also pertinent to notice that
these banks are public sector banks.’***”
7.7. Reference can also be had to Amarendra Kumar
Mohapatra Vrs. State of Odisha, (2014) 4 SCC 583 = AIR
2014 SC 1716; Subrata Narayan Das Vrs. State of
Odisha, W.P.(C) No.18659 of 2016, vide Judgment dated
12.07.2022.
7.8. In the case of Union of India Vrs. Central Administrative
Tribunal, (2019) 4 SCC 290 the following is the
observation:
“25. The Court noted in the above judgment that if a strict
and literal interpretation was given to the decision in
Umadevi, no employee from the State of Jharkhand
appointed on an irregular basis could ever be
regularized as the State was formed on 15
November 2000 and the cut-off date had been fixed
as 10 April 2006. The intent of the Court was to
grant similarly-placed employees who had put theW.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 22 of 41
requisite years of service as mandated by Umadevi,
the benefit of regularization. The Court thus held
that the Jharkhand Sarkar ke Adhinasth Aniyamit
Rup se Niyukt Ewam Karyarat Karmiyo ki Sewa
Niyamitikaran Niyamawali, 2015 (‘the
Regularisation Rules’) must be interpreted in a
pragmatic manner and employees of the State who
had completed 10 years of service on the date of
promulgation of the rules, ought to be regularized. In
doing so, the Court ensured that employees in the
State of Jharkhand who had completed the same
years of service as employees from other States, are
granted parity in terms of regularization. The spirit
of non-discrimination and equity runs through the
decisions in Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1], ML Kesari
[(2010) 9 SCC 247] and Narendra Kumar Tiwari
[(2018) 8 SCC 238].
26. In this background, the issue which now arises
before this Court is in regard to the effective direction
which would govern the present case. The High
Court has directed the Union of India to absorb the
casual workmen, if it is not possible at the Institute
in question, then in any other establishment. The
latter part of the direction, as we have already
noted, cannot be sustained. Equally, in our opinion,
the authorities cannot be heard to throw their hands
in despair by submitting that there are no vacancies
and that it had already regularized such of the
persons in the seniority list, who reported for work.
The Tribunal has entered a finding of fact that this
defence is clearly not borne out of the record.
Accordingly, we are of the view that having decided
to implement the decision of the Tribunal, which was
affirmed by the High Court, the Union of India mustW.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 23 of 41
follow a rational principle and abide strictly by the
seniority list in proceeding to regularize the workmen
concerned. Accordingly, we direct that the case
for regularization shall be considered strictly
in accordance with the seniority list in
pursuance of the directions which were issued
by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High
Court and such of the persons, who are
available for regularization on the basis of
vacancies existing at present, shall be
considered in accordance with law. The Tribunal
has denied back-wages but has ordered a notional
fixation of pay and allowances. While affirming that
direction, we also direct that persons who have
crossed the age of superannuation will be entitled to
the computation and payment of their retiral dues on
that basis. This exercise shall be carried out within a
period of three months from the receipt of a copy of
the judgment. If it becomes necessary to grant age
relaxation to the concerned workmen, the Appellants
shall do so.”
7.9. In Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vrs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91 = (2023) 3 SCC 639, it
has been stated as follows:
“*** The Division Bench rightly held that the learned
Single Judge has not followed the principle of law as
given by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and
Others Vrs. Umadevi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, as
initial appointment must be done by the competent
authority and there must be a sanctioned post on
which the daily rated employee must be working.
***”
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 24 of 41
7.10. It may be apt to refer to Ranjeet Kumar Das Vrs. State of
Odisha, 2018 (I) ILR-CUT 695, wherein relevant portion of
the Judgment runs as follows:
“7. Before delving into the niceties of the order passed
by the tribunal, this Court deems it proper to
examine the claims of the petitioner on the basis of
the factual matrix available on record itself. On the
basis of the pleadings available before this Court, no
doubt the petitioner had approached the tribunal
seeking regularization of his services.
Regularization in service law connotes official
formalisation of an appointment, which was
made on temporary or ad hoc or stop gap or
casual basis or the like, in deviation from the
normal rules of applicable norms of
appointment. Such formalisation makes the
appointment regular. The ordinary meaning of
regularisation is “to make regular” according to The
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edition, and
according to Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, the
word “regular” means:
‘Conformable to law. Steady or uniform in course,
practice, or occurrence; not subject to unexplained or
irrational variation. Usual, customary, normal or
general. Gerald Vrs. American Cas. Co of Reading,
Pa., D.C.N.C., 249 F, Supp. 355, 357. Made
according to rule, duly authorised, formed after
uniform type; built or arranged according to
established plan, law, or principle. Antonym of
“casual” or “occasional,” Palle Vrs. Industrial
Commission, 79 Utah 47, 7 P. 2d. 248, 290.’W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 25 of 41
8. The above being the meaning of “regular”, as per the
common parlance given in dictionary, in B.N.
Nagarajan, Vrs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC
1676 = (1979) 4 SCC 507, the apex Court held that
the effect of such regularization would depend on
the object or purpose for which the regularization is
made or the stage at which it is made. Once
regularized, the procedural infirmities which
attended the appointment are cured. Regularization,
however, does not necessarily connote permanence.
9. The word ‘regular’ or ‘regularisation’ do not
connote permanence and cannot be construed
so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure
of appointments. They are terms calculated to
condone any procedural irregularities and are
meant to cure only such defects as are
attributable to methodology followed in
making the appointments. Relying on the
Judgments of the apex Court in B.N. Nagarajan Vrs.
State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1676 = (1979) 4
SCC 507, the Constitution Bench of the apex Court in
State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1
has also taken the same view, which has also been
followed by the apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum
Corpn. Ltd. Vrs. Ashok Ranghba Ambre, (2008) 2
SCC 717 and also in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Vrs. Dan Bahadur Singh, (2007) 6 SCC 207.
10. Temporary or ad hoc or stop gap or casual basis or
the like appointments are made for various reasons.
An emergent situation might make it necessary to
make such appointments. Since the adoption of the
normal method of regular recruitment might involve
considerable delay regulating in failure to tackle the
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 26 of 41
emergency. Sometimes such appointments were
to be made because although extra hands are
required to meet the workload, there are no
sanctioned posts against which any regular
recruitment could be made. In fact in the case
of ad hoc or casual appointees, the
appointments, are in the majority of cases, not
against sanctioned posts and the appointments
are made because of the necessity of workload
and the constraints of sanctioning such post
(mainly on financial consideration) on
permanent basis. Needless to say that filling up
vacancies against sanctioned posts by
regularisation is against the constitutional provisions
of equality of opportunity in the matter of public
employment violating Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution by not making the offer of employment
to the world at large and allowing all eligible
candidates equality of opportunity to be considered
on merits. If that be so, considering the emergent
necessity of filling up of vacancies and allowing the
petitioner to continue for a quite long period, even if
with one day break in service, cannot be stated to be
a reasonable one, rather, this is an unfair and
unreasonable action of the authority concerned.
***
12. In view of above constitutional philosophy, whether
Courts can remain as mute spectator, is a matter to
be considered to achieve the constitutional goal in
proper perspective. But all these questions had come
up for consideration and decided by the Constitution
Bench of the apex Court in Umadevi (3) mentioned
supra. The factual matrix of the case in Umadevi (3)
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 27 of 41
arose for consideration from a judgment of
Karnataka High Court. In some of the cases, the
Karnataka High Court rejected the claims of
persons, who had been temporarily engaged as
daily wagers but were continued for more than 10
years in the Commercial Taxes Department of the
State of Karnataka for regularization as permanent
employees and their entitlement to all the benefits of
regular employees. Another set of civil appeals arose
from the order passed by the same High Court on a
writ petition challenging the order of the government
directing cancellation of appointments of all casual
workers/daily rated workers and seeking a further
direction for the regularization of all such daily wage
earners engaged by the State or local bodies. These
claims were rejected by the Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court on appeal from the judgment
of the learned Single Judge. The reason for the
mater being considered by the Constitution Bench
arose because of two earlier orders of reference
made by a Bench of two-Judge and subsequently by
a Bench of three-Judge- Secretary, State of
Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (1) (2004) 7 SCC 132, and
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (2)
(2006) 4 SCC 44, respectively, as they noticed the
conflicting opinions expressed by the earlier 3 Bench
judgments in relation to regularization.”
7.11. In Patitapaban Dutta Dash Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C)
No. 19951 of 2020, vide Judgment dated 09.09.2021, a
Single Bench of this Court has made the following
observation:
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 28 of 41
“8. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Court comes
into picture only to ensure observance of
fundamental rights, and to ensure the rule of law
and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a
fair ideal to its employees consistent with
requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution, and that the authority should not
exploit its employees nor should it seek to take
advantage of the helplessness and misery of either
the unemployed persons or the employees, as the
case may be. For this very reason, it is held that a
person should not be kept in contractual, temporary
or ad hoc status for a long period. Where a
contractual, temporary or ad hoc appointment is
continued for long, the Court presumes that there is
need of a regular post and accordingly directs for
regularization. While issuing direction for
regularization, the Court must first ascertain
the relevant fact, and must be cognizant of the
several situations and eventualities that may
arise on account of such direction. If for any
reason, a contractual, ad hoc or temporary
employee is continued for a fairly long spell,
the authorities must consider his case for
regularization, provided he is eligible and
qualified according to rules and his service
record is satisfactory and his appointment
does not run counter to the reservation policy
of the State. Even though a casual labourer is
continued for a fairly long spell, say two or three
years, a presumption may arise that there is regular
need for his service. In such a situation, it becomes
obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the
feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 29 of 41
authorities ought to adopt a positive approach
coupled with empathy for the person.”
7.12. Aforesaid Judgment rendered by the Single Judge of this
Court in Patitapaban Dutta Dash (supra) got the seal of
approval of this Court being carried in appeal bearing
W.A. No. 777 of 2021 before the Division Bench, which
came to be disposed of vide Judgment dated 12.04.2023
[see, (2023) (I) ILR-CUT 906]. While directing the State of
Odisha to implement the direction of the Single Judge
“in letter and spirit”, this Court in the ultimate held as
follows:
“44. Going by the above legal position, in the present
cases, at the highest, the respondents could be
considered to be ‘irregularly’ appointed and
therefore would, even on the touchstone of Umadevi
(supra), be eligible for regularization. The law in M.L.
Kesari (supra), has been reiterated in Amarkant Rai
Vrs. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 265, Sheo Narain
Nagar Vrs. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 432 = AIR
2018 SC 233 and Rajnish Kumar Mishra Vrs. State
of U.P., (2019) 17 SCC 648.”
7.13. Noticing the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vrs.
Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, in Niranjan Nayak Vrs.
State of Odisha & Others, 2023 (I) OLR 407 the
observation of this Court runs as follows:
“12. Similarly, in the case of Amarendra Kumar
Mahapatra and Others Vrs. State of Odisha andW.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 30 of 41
Others, (2014) 4 SCC 583 = AIR 2014 SC 1716, the
Supreme Court was of the opinion that the
appellants were entitled to regularization in
service having regard to the fact that they have
rendered long years of service on ad hoc basis.
13. In the case at hand, it can be ascertained that the
petitioner was appointed against a substantive
vacant post and he had been discharging his duties
in the said post since 1993. The appointment was
made on an ad hoc basis and was extended from
time to time. Since the petitioner was appointed
against substantive vacancy and the post was
sanctioned by higher authorities, the petitioner
should have been extended the benefit of
regulatisation like other similarly situated persons.”
7.14. This Court wishes to take notice of recent view of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India expressed in the case of
Jaggo Vrs. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826,
wherein it has been observed as follows:
“20. It is well established that the decision in Uma
Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize
employees who have rendered long years of
service fulfilling ongoing and necessary
functions of the State or its instrumentalities.
The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor
entries and illegal appointments that circumvent
constitutional requirements. However, where
appointments were not illegal but possibly
“irregular,” and where employees had served
continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned
functions for a considerable period, the need for a
fair and humane resolution becomes paramount.
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 31 of 41
Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service
performing tasks inherently required on a regular
basis can, over the time, transform what was
initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario
demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment
of this Court in Vinod Kumar Vrs. Union of India,
(2024) 1 SCR 1230, it was held that held that
procedural formalities cannot be used to deny
regularization of service to an employee whose
appointment was termed “temporary” but has
performed the same duties as performed by the
regular employee over a considerable period in
the capacity of the regular employee. The
relevant paras of this judgment have been
reproduced below:
‘6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely
with the facts at hand, given the specific
circumstances under which the appellants
were employed and have continued their
service. The reliance on procedural
formalities at the outset cannot be used to
perpetually deny substantive rights that
have accrued over a considerable period
through continuous service. Their promotion
was based on a specific notification for
vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed
by a selection process involving written tests
and interviews, which distinguishes their case
from the appointments through back door entry
as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra)
also distinguished between “irregular” and
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 32 of 41
“illegal” appointments underscoring the
importance of considering certain appointments
even if were not made strictly in accordance
with the prescribed Rules and Procedure,
cannot be said to have been made illegally if
they had followed the procedures of regular
appointments such as conduct of written
examinations or interviews as in the present
case. ***”
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial
label of the appellants’ engagements and the
outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal.
Courts must look beyond the surface labels and
consider the realities of employment: continuous,
long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence
of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments.
In that light, refusing regularization simply
because their original terms did not explicitly
state so, or because an outsourcing policy was
belatedly introduced, would be contrary to
principles of fairness and equity.
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 toW.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 33 of 41
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.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of
which India is a founding member, has consistently
advocated for employment stability and the fair
treatment of workers. The ILO’s Multinational
Enterprises Declaration [International Labour
Organization– Tripartite Declaration of Principles
concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social
Policy] encourages companies to provide stable
employment and to observe obligations concerning
employment stability and social security. It
emphasizes that enterprises should assume a
leading role in promoting employment security,
particularly in contexts where job
discontinuation could exacerbate long-term
unemployment.
24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the
case of Vizcaino Vrs. Microsoft Corporation, 97 F.3d
1187 (9th Cir. 1996) serves as a pertinent example
from the private sector, illustrating the consequences
of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing
benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain
workers as independent contractors, thereby
denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these
workers were, in fact, common-law employees and
were entitled to the same benefits as regular
employees. The Court noted that large CorporationsW.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 34 of 41
have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring
temporary employees or independent contractors as
a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits,
thereby increasing their profits. This judgment
underscores the principle that the nature of the work
performed, rather than the label assigned to the
worker, should determine employment status and
the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights
the judiciary’s role in rectifying such
misclassifications and ensuring that workers
receive fair treatment.
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 labeled 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
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 35 of 41
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.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought
to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and
ensure appointments adhered to constitutional
principles, it is regrettable that its principles
are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny
legitimate claims of long-serving employees.
This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal”
and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 36 of 41
that employees in irregular appointments, who were
engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served
continuously for more than ten years, should be
considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment is
being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to
indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even
in cases where their appointments are not illegal,
but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment in
Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment’s explicit acknowledgment
of cases where regularization is appropriate. This
selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit
and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against
employees who have rendered indispensable
services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for Government departments to lead by
example in providing fair and stable employment.
Engaging workers on a temporary basis for
extended periods, especially when their roles are
integral to the organization’s functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but also
exposes the organization to legal challenges and
undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair
employment practices, Government institutions
can reduce the burden of unnecessary
litigation, promote job security, and uphold the
principles of justice and fairness that they are
meant to embody. This approach aligns with
international standards and sets a positive
precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 37 of 41
contributing to the overall betterment of labour
practices in the country.”
7.15. In the case of Shripal Vrs. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 221 referring to observations rendered in
Jaggo (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
been pleased to clarify that:
“16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer’s
inability to justify these abrupt terminations.
Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily
wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay.
Regrettably, this only perpetuated
precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left
in a marginally improved yet still uncertain
status. While the High Court recognized the
importance of their work and hinted at eventual
regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of
service or meaningful back wages commensurate with
the degree of statutory violation evident on record.
17. In light of these considerations, the Employer’s
discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in
violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once
it is established that their services were terminated
without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were
engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers
cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While
concerns of municipal budget and compliance with
recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns
do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or
negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic
limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of
workmen who have served continuously in de
facto regular roles for an extended period.
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 38 of 41
18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent
they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-
wage engagement without continuity or meaningful
back wages, is hereby set aside with the following
directions:
I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen’s
services, effected without compliance with
Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders
or communications terminating their services are
quashed. In consequence, the Appellant
Workmen shall be treated as continuing in
service from the date of their termination, for all
purposes, including seniority and continuity in
service.
II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the
Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or
posts akin to the duties they previously
performed) within four weeks from the date of
this judgment. Their entire period of absence
(from the date of termination until actual
reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of
service and all consequential benefits, such as
seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any.
III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant
Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back
wages from the date of their discontinuation until
their actual reinstatement. The Respondent
Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within
three months from the date of their
reinstatement.
IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a
fair and transparent process for regularizing theW.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 39 of 41
Appellant Workmen within six months from the
date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact
that they have performed perennial municipal
duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing
regularization, the Employer shall not impose
educational or procedural criteria retroactively if
such requirements were never applied to the
Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated
regular employees in the past. To the extent that
sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are
required, the Respondent Employer shall
expedite all necessary administrative processes
to ensure these longtime employees are not
indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to
statutory and equitable norms.”
7.16. This Court takes note of decision of a Division Bench
vide Judgment dated 02.11.2023 passed in the case of
Union of India and others Vrs. Subhankari Das and
others in W.P.(C) No.34332 of 2023, wherein having
regard to catena of decisions on the issue of
regularisation of service rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India and also the High Court of
Delhi, a direction was issued to the authority concerned
to regularise the service of the opposite party therein.
8. The fact that the petitioner has been engaged to work as
sweeper pursuant to consideration in due process in the
Meeting of the Governing Body of Rogi Kalyana Samiti
and acknowledged his service in the Primary Health
Centre (N), Malipada since 2010. The fact that the
petitioner has filed representation before the authority
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 40 of 41
concerned and pendency thereof is not disputed.
Needless to observe that the service of a sweeper is
required perennially.
9. In view of aforesaid facts, circumstances and bearing in
mind, the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the afore-reported judgments this Court feels
it apposite to direct the opposite party No.5 (before
whom the representation is furnished) to consider the
representation dated 09.11.2017 taking into account the
decisions referred to (supra).
9.1. As this Court does not wish to express any opinion on
the merit of the matter, it is hoped that taking pragmatic
view in the matter the opposite parties (competent
authorities) shall pass reasoned order within a period of
eight weeks from the date of communication of copy of
this order to the opposite parties to be communicated by
the petitioner.
9.2. In fine, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 2nd April, 2025//Suchitra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Apr-2025 14:50:46
W.P.(C) No.24975 of 2017 Page 41 of 41
[ad_1]
Source link