SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
Rasmita Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) Nos. 24653 & 24487 of 2025 & W.P.(C) Nos.17633, 19446, 21190 & 37213 of 2022
Decided On : 28-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Pami Rath, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate Mr. S.K. Ojha, Advocate Mr. A. Das, Advocate Mr. D. Panda, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate

Appointments made under prior rules and continuous service warrant regularization despite new regulations, reaffirming principles of equity and fairness in public employment.

Headnote:(A) Orissa Local Fund Service Rules, 1975 - Rule 6(d) and Rule 7 - N/A - Regularization claims of Assistant Engineers under the BRGF Scheme - Petitioners were appointed under the 1975 Rules and continued despite scheme closure, with remuneration aligned to the Asst. Executive Engineer pay scale - Argument against applicability of 2016 Rules was accepted due to ongoing service and prior regularization of similar roles - The court found grounds for prior rejection of claims to be unsustainable. (Paras 6, 6.2, 6.4, and 6.5)

(B) Employment Law - Regularization of services - Continuous service and the nature of duties performed by the Petitioners support their entitlement to regularization despite initial contractual agreements - Decisions from the Supreme Court and other judgments reaffirmed the principle that individuals engaged in perennial roles should not be denied benefits of regularization. (Paras 4.15, 6.5)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioners were selected as Assistant Engineers following a competitive exam in 2012 and appointed on a contractual basis in 2013 under a closed scheme. They participated in job transfers and were paid salaries due to the scheme's amendments. After the scheme closure, they sought regularization due to their continued service and the precedent of regularizing others in similar positions.

Findings of Court:
The claims for regularization were granted as the rejection by the Department was deemed illegal; further, the role's necessity merits recognition for their prolonged service.

Issues: The primary issues were the legitimacy of the appointment process under the former rules and the discrepancy in the treatment of similarly situated employees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of consistent engagement beyond initial contract terms and recognized the Petitioners’ rights to regularization based on the nature of their work and the precedent set by parallel cases.

Result: The Petitioners' services are to be regularized against available posts.

Table of Content
1. petitioners engaged under the brgf scheme. (Para 3 , 4)
2. court's determination on petitioners' eligibility for regularization. (Para 6)
3. final order for regularization of petitioners. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Since the issue involved in all these cases is identical, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Director Municipal Administration and Ex-Officio Addl. Secretary to Housing & Urban Development, inviting applications to fill up 22 posts of Asst. Engineer (Civil) on contractual basis under BRGF Scheme on 14.07.2012, all the Petitioners with having the requisites qualification as prescribed, made their applications and participated in the selection process, which includes the written examination followed by viva-voce to be conducted by the Board constituted by the Department.

4.1. It is contended that on coming out successful in the selection process so initiated, Petitioners vide a common order issued on dtd. 11.01.2013, were engaged as Asst. Engineer (Civil) on contractual basis with consolidated remuneration of Rs.9,300/- per month under the BRGF Scheme. In terms of such order of appointment issued on 11.01.2013, all the Petitioners joined in their respective place of posting and were allowed to continue.

4.2. It is also contended that on being so appointed, Petitioners were transferred from one Urban Local Body to another, vide different orders issued by the Department at different point of time.

4.3. It is also further contended that by the time Petitioners were so appointed pursuant to the advertisement issued on 14.07.2012, selection was conducted in terms of the provisions contained under the Orissa Local Fund Service Rules, 1975 (in short 1975 Rules). Not only that in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-7 of the aforesaid 1975 Rules, selection and appointment was made by the Selection Board constituted by the Department. Rule-7 of the 1975 Rules reads as follows:-

“7. (1) Selection for appointment to the posts in the Service whether constituting of a Chairman and members as follows:

(a) The Director, Municipal Administration ...Chairman

(b) Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development in charge of Local Fund Service ... Member and Convenor of the Selection Board

(c) A Chairman of any Urban Local Body nominated by the Government ... Member

(d) Senior-most Executive Officer of the Urban Local Bodies (in the Odisha Administrative Service Class-1, Senior Branch) ... Member

Provided that in the case of selection of candidates to the cadres of Executive Engineers, "The Assistant Executive Engineers) and Assistant Engineers, the Chief Engineer, Public Health, Odisha and in the case of selection of candidates to the cadre of Junior Engineers, the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Circle, Bhubaneswar shall also be a member of the Selection Board:

Provided further that the names of members specified in Clauses (c) and (d) shall be notified by the Government from time to time.

Note-For determining the senior-most Chairman, the longest continuous tenure as an elected Chairman of Municipal Councils and Notified Area Councils in the State shall be taken into account, where more than one Chairman have equal length of tenure, the senior-most shall be determined according to seniority in age.

(2) The Executive Officer of Municipality or Notified Area Council, as the case may be, shall on or before the 1st day of April of every year, report to the Director, Municipal Administration the probable number of vacancies in different cadres of service required to be filled up during the year.

(3) The Director, Municipal Administration after receipt of reports from Exe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top