Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Hemanta Kumar Behera – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
1. Heard Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.
2. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly contended that since during pendency of the Writ Petition, Petitioner Nos.4, 5, 6, 8 & 11 have already got the benefit of regularization, the Writ Petition be confined to the other petitioners.
3. It is contended that rest of the petitioners though were engaged prior to 12.04.1993 i.e. the cutoff date fixed by the Finance Department in its Resolution dated 15.05.1997, but instead of absorbing them in the regular establishment in terms of said resolution, petitioners were brought over to the Work Charged Establishment vide order da
Workers with perennial roles must be recognized for regularization without exploiting temporary classifications, aligning with constitutional obligations of fair treatment under employment law.
Prolonged temporary employment without regularization contravenes labor rights; employers must ensure fair and stable employment as mandated by judicial principles.
The court emphasized that rights to regularization must not be undermined by interim orders, as continuous service in a permanent role bears entitlement to regularization under fair labor practices.
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 daily wage employees, after 10 years of service, are entitled to regularization as established by Supreme Court principles in employment law.
Continuous employment in essential roles exhibits grounds for regularization, defying exploitative temporary contracts in violation of constitutional labor rights.
Continuous and uninterrupted service of temporary employees qualifies them for regularisation, as upheld by apex court judgments emphasizing fairness in employment practices.
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 court affirmed the principle that continuous employment in essential roles requires regularization, emphasizing that temporary contracts must not bypass the rights of workers for stable employmen....
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
Listen Article