Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Manoranjan Moharana – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the rejection of regularization (Para 3 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner's continuous employment and eligibility (Para 4) |
| 3. court's direction for regularization (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularisation vide the impugned order dt.27.05.2022 so issued under Annexure-8 by Opp.Party No.2.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a DLR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 on 01.08.1991 and since that date, Petitioner is continuing as such without any break in engagement and without protection of any interim order passed by any Court of law.
4.1 It is contended that since Petitioner continued as a DLR w.e.f 01.08.1991, in view of the Finance Deptt. Resolution issued on 15.05.1997 under Annexure-2, Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of regularisation with due absorption in the post in question.
4.2. It is also contended that basing on the resolution issued by the Finance Depa
Continuous and uninterrupted service of temporary employees qualifies them for regularisation, as upheld by apex court judgments emphasizing fairness in employment practices.
Long-term daily wage employees, after 10 years of service, are entitled to regularization as established by Supreme Court principles in employment law.
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....
The court affirmed the obligations of the State to regularize long-serving employees in essential roles, emphasizing fair employment practices and adherence to constitutional provisions.
The government has a duty to regularize long-serving irregular employees due to established legal principles mandating regularization for those meeting certain criteria, thereby ensuring job security....
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....
The court emphasized the importance of regularizing long-serving temporary employees to ensure compliance with fairness principles and constitutional protections in employment.
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.
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
