The court ruled that long-term service necessitates regularization of employees despite insufficient sanctioned posts, upholding obligations of statutory entities.

JUDGMENT :

DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J .

All these Intra-Court appeals are by the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board. They seek to call in question the subject orders rendered by learned Single Judges of this Court in the individual writ petitions. All these orders in substance direct the Appellant Board to absorb/regularize the services of Respondent-employees and that if need be and to facilitate the same, posts be created/sanctioned by the Government since they have been in continuous & spotless service for more than two decades, the perennial nature of work specifically being admitted by the Appellant-Board.

2. For the ease of reference, W.A. No. 857 of 2024 has been taken up with the consent of the Bar as the lead case and relevant part of impugned order dated 22.03.2024 entered in W.P.(C) No. 12794 of 2015 is reproduced:

“….In such view of the matter, the Opposite Parties are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization his service in the light of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench referred to hereinabove which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court within a period of two months….It is further directed that while considering the case of the Petitioner for regularization as his service as directed hereinabove, the Opposite Party cannot reject the claim only on the ground that there are no sanctioned posts. Further it is directed that in such eventuality, the Opposite Parties shall take a decision with regard to creation and sanctioned of posts to absorb/regularize of the Petitioner. In the event such decision is taken pursuant to the aforesaid direction and the same requires the concurrence of State, the State-Opposite Parties shall consider grant of concurrence keeping in mind that the Petitioner has been working for more than two decades and as such the nature of work they are performing perennial in nature.” (sic)

3. After service of notice, the Respondent-employees, barring a few, have entered appearance through their learned advocates. Learned panel counsel appearing for the Board argued for the invalidation of impugned orders, whereas learned advocates representing the employees contended to the contra resisting the appeals. We hasten to mention here itself that there is a consensus at the Bar that all these appeals involve common questions of law & facts, and therefore they be heard & decided by a common judgment, notwithstanding minor variations in the pleadings of some of the employees.

4. The gist of submissions made on behalf of Appellant-Board is as under: -

(a) Regardless of length of service, employees of the kind are not entitled to absorption/regularization in the absence of sufficient number of sanctioned posts, especially when they were not working in the vacancies of any posts and their initial entry to the employment itself was illegal.

(b) Learned Single Judges grossly erred in directing creation & sanctioning of posts, which prerogative invariably lies with the Government, inasmuch as a host of factors enter the fray of such a decision making.

(c) Learned Single Judges have accorded relief to the employees in gross violation of law declared by the apex Court in State of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. In support of above submissions, learned Counsel pressed into service certain rulings of the Apex Court.

5. In resistance to appeals, the following contentions are urged on behalf of Respondent-employees:

(a) Appellant-Board being Article 12 entity under the Constitution has to conduct itself as a Model Employer and provide humane conditions of service for the workmen like the respondents as a matter of constitutional imperative; the impugned orders being animated by this view cannot be faltered.

(b) The long & spotless service of a quarter century demonstrates perennial nature of the work and therefore the argument that sufficient posts are not available for according absorption/ regularization would not avail to the Appellant-Board.

(c) Appellant-Board is a Stat