Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 850

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Susil Kumar Behera - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Odisha And Others - Respondents
W.P.C.(O.A.) No. 2749 of 2018
Decided On : 04-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. M. Pati, S. Kar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Addl. Government Advocate

Authorities must regularize employees engaged in perennial public functions under constitutional mandates, guarding against exploitative practices involving temporary classifications. Continuous labor should align with lawful employment relationships, ensuring fair treatment and compliance with employment rights.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Employment Law - The rejection of the petitioner's representation for regularization of service as a Sweeper was challenged in a writ petition - The petitioner claims continuous engagement since 2000 with responsibilities that include hazardous work, relying on various orders and communications from authorities, contradicted by claims of being an outsourced employee post-2016 - The court held the authorities failed to substantiate their classification of the petitioner as an outsourced worker and highlighted the element of exploitation of labor by administrative controls - The court emphasized the need for regularization reflective of ongoing public services and ordered that the impugned order be quashed while acknowledging the continuous service of the petitioner without retrospective financial benefits. (Paras 10-12)

(B) Employment Status - Definition of employer-employee relationship - The court ruled against the arbitrary classification of an existing employee as outsourced to evade labor rights and liabilities, reinforcing that the state acts as a constitutional employer. (Paras 7-9)

(C) Regularization - Post-retirement and deceased policy considerations regarding regularization and entitlements were discussed in relation to long-standing employees in public services. (Paras 18-19)

Table of Content
1. details of petitioner's employment history and claims (Para 2)
2. opposite parties' defense regarding employment status (Para 3)
3. analysis of employment records and claims of petitioner (Para 7 , 8)
4. interpretation of constitutional rights in labor relations (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. final order on regularization of services (Para 12)

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his representation for regularization of his service by the Dean & Principal, VIMSAR, Burla (Opposite Party No.3) and in the present writ petition, he seeks quashment of said order of rejection and for a direction to the opposite parties to regularize his services in any class-IV post.

CASE OF THE PETITIONER:-

2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Sweeper on 07.02.2000 by the Principal of VIMSAR, Burla on daily wage/ad-hoc basis.

2.1. By letter dated 19.09.2006, the Principal moved the Director of Medical Education and Training, Odisha to fix daily wages @ Rs.55/- per day and recommended for contractual appointment. Despite such letter of recommendation, no action was taken by the authorities for which the petitioner and others approached the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1089(C) of 2000 with prayer for regularization of their services.

2.2. The Tribunal, by order dated 24.04.2007 directed the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner within six weeks with further direction that if the petitioner has not been disengaged, he shall not be disengaged. The petitioner accordingly continued in such engagement.

2.3. The authorities regularized the services of his juniors vide order dated 09.10.2013 ignoring him. The petitioner again approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.2973 of 2016. The Tribunal, by order dated 02.01.2017 directed the Opposite Party No.3 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner submitted on 03.06.2015 within three weeks. 2.4. Pursuant to such order, Opposite Party No.3 by his order dated 04.07.2018, rejected the representation on the ground that the petitioner had never been appointed as full time contractual employee and that he was working as outsourced Sweeper through outsourcing agency since three years. It was further stated that his case is not similar to employees who were selected on full time contractual basis following ORV Act by 02.01.2006 and their services were regularized as per G.A. Deptt. resolution dated 17.09.2013 upon completion of six years of continuous service.

2.5. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was initially engaged in the department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology in VIMSAR to assist in postmortem examination and other works of mortuary. Looking at his experience, the HOD of the department by letter dated 07.02.2000 recommended his name for engagement as casual Labourer-cum-Sweeper against the vacancy arising due to expiry of one of the Sweepers, namely, Bideshi Tandia on 01.02.2000.

2.6. The authorities have extracted postmortem work from the petitioner since 07.02.2000, which most of the employees are not interested to do. As per information obtained by the petitioner under the RTI Act, it can be ascertained that he has worked continuously since 2007.

CASE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:-

3. The case of the opposite parties is that the petitioner despite claiming to have been appointed as Sweeper on 07.02.2000 has failed to submit a copy of the appointment order.

3.1. The petitioner’s appointment, if at all, being in the nature of back-door entry, his case for regularization cannot be considered. He had approached the Labour Court, Sambalpur claiming compensation and arrear wages under Section 33 -C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act but the same was rejected as not maintainable.

3.2. It is the further case of the opposite parties that the petitioner was working from March, 2000 to October, 2002 for 15 days in a month and from November, 2002 to May, 2007 for 8 days in a month and was paid wages accordi