Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 660

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Arabinda Acharya - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha And Others – Respondents
WP(C) No.10276 of 2020, W.P.(C) No.10821 of 2020, W.P.(C) No. 11001 of 2020, W.P.(C) No. 11004 of 2020, W.P.(C) No.11007 of 2020, W.P.(C) No.19333 of 2022
Decided On : 07-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D.K Panda, Mr. A.K Biswal, Mr. A.K Mohapatra, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate, M/s. Satyabrata Mohanty-1, T.K. Kamila, Advocate, Mr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Advocate

Continuous and necessary service by contractual employees requires consideration for regularization, transcending mere contractual limitations, provided sanctioned posts exist.

Headnote:(A) Indian Constitution - Article 21 - Contractual engagement and regularization - Petitioners engaged under project-specific terms challenged their non-regularization and replacement by outsourced manpower - Court emphasized that continuous, necessary service by contractual employees cannot be disregarded to evade statutory obligations - Mere contractual labels cannot deny rights to livelihood - Regularization prohibited if there are no sanctioned posts; however, creation of suitable posts should be explored. (Paras 18, 19, 20, 24, 30)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners engaged as assistants under project agreements since 2011, sought regularization due to long service and availability of equivalent posts, while the State argued for termination based on contractual nature. (Paras 4, 5, 14, 28)

Findings of Court:
The petitioners' services are necessary for ongoing operations and should not be replaced arbitrarily; status quo must be maintained until a review of regularization viability is performed. (Paras 24, 30)

Issues: Whether contractual employees can seek regularization of their services despite existing project-based engagement terms. (Para 18)

Ratio Decidendi: Continuous service in essential roles warrants consideration for regularization against statutory responsibilities, emphasizing the imbalance in bargaining power affecting contractual relationships. (Paras 22, 27)

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions for reviewing potential regular post creation for petitioners.

Table of Content
1. common facts regarding the petitioner's contractual employment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. state's argument against regularization based on engagements being project-based. (Para 5 , 6)
3. petitioners' arguments for regularization with case law backing. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. overview of petitioner's engagement and related documents. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. nature of work is integral and recurring despite project-based label. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
6. court's legal reasoning regarding regularization based on service nature. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. finding that engagement must be secured under constitutional rights. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
8. court's directive for authorities to create regular posts. (Para 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. All these writ applications involve common facts and law and, having been heard together, are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For brevity, the facts of W.P.(C) No. 10276 of 2020 are being referred to in this judgment.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ application seeking the following relief:

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 25.11.2019 vide Annexure-6 and consequential agenda for outsourced employment as at Annexure-8 dated 06.01.2020. And further direct the opposite parties that the case of the petitioner shall be considered for regularization, taking into consideration the memorandum submitted by the Managing Director before the Board of Directors. And further to pay revised scale of pay and grade pay as have been extended to regular employees of the Corporation.

And pass any other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice.

And for which act of kindness, the petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.”

FACTS

4. An advertisement was issued on 09.11.2011 by opposite party No.2 – Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (OLIC) inviting applications from intending candidates to fill up different posts under Biju Krushak Vikas Yojana Deep Bore Well Secha Karyakrama (BKVY-DBSK) on a contractual basis through a walk-in interview. Three posts of Computer Assistant were notified, carrying consolidated remuneration of Rs. 7500/-. The petitioner appeared in the interview held on 20.11.2011, whereafter a list containing 32 candidates was prepared. Consequently, the petitioner was offered appointment as per letter dated 14.12.2011.

4.1 It was mentioned in the letter of engagement that the engagement was purely for the purpose of the Project Management Unit (PMU) for Deep Bore Well Secha Karyakrama and had no relationship with the regular establishment of OLIC. Further, the offer was said to be valid for a period of one year from the date of joining, based on the terms of the contract. The engagement of the petitioner was extended for a period of one year from time to time. On 26.11.2018, the petitioner, having completed six years of service in the said post, submitted a representation before opposite party No.2 with a prayer for regularization of services. Since no action was taken, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4414 of 2019. By order dated 07.11.2019, this Court directed the opposite party authorities to consider the grievance of the petitioner within a period of two months. On 25.11.2019, the Joint Secretary to the Government in the Department of Water Resources wrote to opposite party No.2 that the manpower for the State Project Unit (SPU) and Divisional Project Unit (DPU) should be engaged on redeployment and outsourcing basis. Therefore, contractual engagement should be discouraged and replaced by outsourced manpower before submission of subsequent renewal. By order dated 17.02.2020, opposite party No.2 rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the same had no merit, as the appointment of the petitioner was purely on a contractual basis, havin