Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Purna Chandra Sethi – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding regularization and discrimination. (Para 5) |
| 2. court’s observations on similar cases. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis along with others vide order of appointment issued on 16.05.1996 under Annexure-2. However, after long continuance, when persons appointed vide order under Annexure-2 approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.3092 & 3091 of 2015 and batch, the said Original Applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dt.01.05.2018 under Annexure-7 inter alia directing the State-Opp. parties to regularize the services of the Petitioners therein. Pursuant to the said order and after confirmation of the same by the Apex Court in the appeal filed by the State, the order passed by the Tribunal was complied, vide order dt.28.09.2021 under Annexure-11.
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since similar benefit in favour of the similar appointees have been extended vide order under Annexure-11, Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-7, Petitioner being sim
The court confirms that similarly situated individuals must receive equal treatment per Article 14 of the Constitution.
Employment rights cannot be denied based on temporary status when similarly situated individuals have been granted permanent positions, violating the principle of equality under Article 14.
Long continuance in service mandates regularization, especially when similar cases have been regularized under court direction.
The authorities must extend benefits of regularization to similarly situated individuals, adhering to principles of equality and prior judicial decisions.
Long-term service in irregular employment merits regularization despite procedural non-compliance, reaffirming equal treatment rights under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The court ruled that administrative decisions regarding employment regularization must avoid arbitrary discrimination and adhere to principles of equal treatment under the law.
The denial of regularization to similarly situated employees constitutes discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, justifying judicial intervention to restore equitable treatment.
The court emphasized that procedural fairness and equality must prevail in administrative decisions, particularly regarding labor regularization, highlighting that technical grounds cannot overshadow....
Long-term employees cannot be denied regularization solely due to the absence of formal appointment documents; equitable treatment under Article 14 mandates similar consideration for all similarly si....
Irregular appointments may be regularized after prolonged continuous service, as technical grounds cannot undermine substantive employment rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
