Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Ganesh Chandra Bhuyan and Another - Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha & others – Respondents
W.A. No.3071 of 2023, W.A. No.296 of 2025
Decided On : 15-12-2025
Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.K. Jee, Addl. Govt. Adv.
The court ruled that long-serving contractual workers must be regularized when posts were created for them, emphasizing their rights as workmen and identifying State's failure as unfair labor practice.
Headnote:(A) Odisha Group-C and Group-D Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 - Amendment Rules, 2017 - Employment law - Regularization of services - Appellants, engaged as ECG Technicians since 2011, sought regularization after their posts were created in 2014; court emphasized legitimacy of their continuous service and prior selection process. (Paras 9, 11, 17)
(B) Unfair Labour Practice - Recognition of employees as 'workmen' under Industrial Disputes Act; court found State's actions in denying regularization, despite recommendations, constituted unfair practices. (Paras 14, 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
Appellants were employed on a contractual basis since 2011 without proper recognition, although their duties were continuously required and acknowledged by the State.
Issues: Whether the State was justified in not regularizing the Appellants' posts despite existing recommendations and posts being created.
Findings of Court:
Court directed State to absorb the Appellants against sanctioned posts and grant due benefits, criticizing the delay in addressing their representation.
Ratio Decidendi: Acknowledgement of Appellants' qualifications and long service necessitates regularization; failure to adhere to recommendations resulted in unfair labour practices.
Result: Writ Appeal No.3071 of 2023 allowed; State-respondents directed to regularize services within three months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ appeals concern regularization of services. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellants argue for regularization based on previous judgments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court notes employment history and unfair labor practices. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. state's conduct constitutes unfair labor practice. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. court orders regularization and service benefits. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Mishra, J.
Writ Appeal No.3071 of 2023 has been preferred by the Appellants, who were the Petitioners in WPC (OAC) No.2180 of 2016, against the Judgment dated 15.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC (OAC) No.2180 of 2016 with a prayer to modify the said judgment and direct the Respondent No.1 to regularize their services.
Similarly, Writ Appeal No.296 of 2025 has been preferred by the State of Odisha and others, who were the Opposite Parties in WPC (OAC) No.2180 of 2016, with a prayer to set aside the said judgment dated 15.11.2023 passed in WPC (OAC) No.2180 of 2016.
2. The parties to the above Appeals being same and the impugned judgment in both the Writ Appeals being same, involving the issue regarding regularization of the services of the Appellants in Writ Appeal No.3071 of 2023, both the Writ Appeals were taken up together for hearing and final disposal and are being disposed of vide this common Judgment.
3. It is pertinent to mention here that, the Appellants in Writ Appeal No.3071 of 2023 preferred O.A. No.2180 (C) of 2016 before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to set aside the notice declaring the result in connection with Advertisement No.9119 dated 17.12.2015, read with Corrigendum No.9381 dated 28.12.2015. On abolition of Odisha Administrative Tribunal, the said case, being transferred to this Court, was re-registered as WPC (OAC) No.2180 of 2016 and disposed of vide the impugned judgment.
4. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants in Writ Appeal No.3071 of 2023, drawing attention of this Court to various paragraphs of the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, so also relying on the judgments in Jaggo Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2025 SC 296, Sripal Vs. Nagarnigam, Gagiabad, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 211, judgment dated 19.08.2025 of the Supreme Court in Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018, so also judgment of this Court dated 08.07.2025 passed in W.A. No.2629 of 2024 (State of Odisha & anr. Vs. Bjay Kishan Nath and Ors.), vehemently argued that, in view of the findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, direction ought to have been given for regularization/permanent absorption of the Petitioners against the created posts, instead of relegating them again to the authority concerned for disposal of their representation, which is pending since 2014 despite direction of the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 2367 (C ) of 2014.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that when the posts were created for absorbing/accommodating the Appellants and similarly placed two others, the Authority concerned was not justified to go for an open advertisement for filling up those posts.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel, relying on the Judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vrs. Umadevi & others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, submitted that the Appellants in W.A. No.3071 of 2023 had no right to claim for regularization of their services even though their cases were recommended by the authority concerned for their permanent absorption/regularization. Such appointments being made on contractual basis and they being paid from the funds generated from users fee, the Appellants have no right to claim regularization on the plea of creation of posts, which were created subsequent to their appointment.
7. After taking note of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties so also going through the impugned Judgment passed in WPC (OAC) No.2180 of 2016, we feel it appropriate t
