Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Tusar Ranjan Satapathy – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenged the rejection of regularization based on extended tenure. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. result mandates the regularization process for the petitioner. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt.Advocate for the State.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter-alia challenging order dated 11.04.2022 so issued by O.P. No.1 under Annexure-9. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of regularization has been rejected.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was engaged as Night Watcher in the office of ICDS, Ramanguda, Rayagada w.e.f. 05.11.1997. It is contended that since the petitioner was allowed to continue on daily wages basis w.e.f. 05.11.1997 without being protected by any interim order passed by any Court of law, he became eligible to get the benefit of regularization in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC1.
3.1. It is contended that on the face of such entitlement of the petitioner to get the benefit of regularization in terms of th
Regularization of employees engaged for over ten years without interim court orders is mandated; exploitative contractual practices are disallowed.
Long-term daily wage employees, after 10 years of service, are entitled to regularization as established by Supreme Court principles in employment law.
The court ruled that employees engaged continuously for over ten years are entitled to regularization, regardless of irregular appointment status, reaffirming precedents from the Supreme Court highli....
Long-term temporary employment in a sanctioned post qualifies employees for regularization when no lawful recruitment process is conducted, affirming their rights and job security.
The government has a duty to regularize long-serving irregular employees due to established legal principles mandating regularization for those meeting certain criteria, thereby ensuring job security....
The court affirmed the obligations of the State to regularize long-serving employees in essential roles, emphasizing fair employment practices and adherence to constitutional provisions.
The court reaffirmed that long-standing temporary employees, performing essential duties, must be regularized, rejecting claims of irregularity based solely on appointment processes without addressin....
Long-term temporary employees engaged in essential work must be regularized after sustained service, as continuous unjust denial violates constitutional rights.
Prolonged temporary employment without regularization contravenes labor rights; employers must ensure fair and stable employment as mandated by judicial principles.
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
