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) 864

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K. PATTANAIK, J.
Idris Ali Khan & others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Odisha - Opposite Party
W.P. (C) No.20965 of 2020 with W.P.(C) No. 20967 of 2020
Decided On : 13-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate, Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Senior Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Behera, AGA, Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA, Ms. B. Dash, ASC.

The court emphasized that long uninterrupted service in governmental roles, despite initial irregular appointments, warrants consideration for regularization in accordance with established legal precedents.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Regularization of Services - Court considers legal precedent from Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and M.L. Kesari v. State of Karnataka and others (2010) 9 SCC 247 - Petitioners, contractual Assistant Software Engineers, sought regularization after completing six years of service under Odisha government in light of resolution dated 15th February 2014. The court found that despite engagement in temporary posts without following standard recruitment procedures, their long continuous service justified consideration for regularization. (Paras 2, 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Programmers and later as Assistant Software Engineers in the Home (Election) Department, having served since 2008. They sought regularization based on the state resolution for Group-B employees. Opposing the claim, the State argued that their posts were merely contractual, temporary, and lacked sanctioned status.

Findings of Court:
Regularization of the petitioners' services should be considered as their roles are integral to the department, and their lengthy service fulfills the criteria established by the Supreme Court for consideration pending prior engagements.

Issues: Whether the petitioners can be regularized despite temporary contractual appointments and lack of a formal recruitment process?

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that their continuous service over years, along with the need for manpower as outlined by policy guidelines, necessitates consideration for regularization, aligning with prior Supreme Court judgments asserting the legitimacy of claims based on unbroken service records.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with a direction to the State for consideration of regularization in line with the judicial precedents.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek regularization of services. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of employment and assignments of petitioners. (Para 3 , 4)
3. state opposes regularization, citing temporary status. (Para 5 , 6)
4. arguments from both parties regarding regularization. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
5. legal precedents regarding regularization considered. (Para 11 , 12)
6. discussion on the implications of long service and legality. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
7. court’s consideration of petitioners' continuous service. (Para 18 , 19)
8. court orders regularization process to be initiated. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Though separately heard, both the writ petitions are clubbed together since identical question is involved for determination, hence, are disposed of by the following common judgment.

2. The writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking regularization of their services as Assistant Software Engineers in Home (Election) Department, Government of Odisha in the scale of pay of Rs. 9,300/- to Rs. 34, 800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- w.e.f. 2nd June, 2014 on the date completing six years ofservice with consequential benefits in view of the resolution dated 15th February, 2014 of the GA Department with such decision within the stipulated period and in the same manner, as has been allowed in respect of contractual IT personnel in various Government Departments and Establishments in terms of Annexure-1 series and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Uma Devi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka and others Vrs. M.L. Kesari and others (2010)9 SCC 247 besides a decision of this Court dated 7th August, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.17937 of 2020 and further to direct not to dispense with their services till the decision is taken in that regard.

3. As per the pleadings on record, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 20965 of 2020 were selected and employed as the Junior Programmers under a project and their services were extended from time to time till 1st July, 2004 and thereafter, shown to have been engaged under a Chartered Accountant. Such appointments have been in terms of Annexure-1with engagement of the petitioners under Election Photo Identity Card Project. It is further stated that in view of such selection, the petitioners continued in service in the manner allowed and in the meanwhile, on 23rd May, 2008, the Department created six Assistant Software Engineer posts on contractual remuneration of Rs. 12,000/- as per Annexure-2 with the concurrence of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha and in that connection, on 28th May, 2008, the Chief Electoral Officer, Odisha published an advertisement in a local Daily ‘Samaj’ and ‘New Indian Express’ for a walk-in interview to fill up the said posts inviting candidates having MCA qualification with minimum three years of experience in election related IT work under the SLA Project. Upon such advertisement, as per Annexure-3, the selection Committee held interview of 22 candidates including the petitioners on 31st May, 2008 and prepared a select list of six candidates. The proceedings of the meeting of the Selection Committee held on the said date is at Annexure-4, as per which, the petitioners found suitable for engagement as Assistant Software Engineers on contractual basis in the order of merit mentioned therein. Later to the above selection, according to the petitioners, all of them joined as Assistant Software Engineers in Home (Election) Department on 2nd June, 2008. It is further pleaded that in the meantime, the Election Commission of India issued policy guidelines as per Annexure-7 for standardization of ERMS and creation of National Data Base of Electoral Roll and schedule for pre- revision activities indicating therein, the State of Odisha to have been placed in the category of ‘Large State’ with the need and requirement of specified manpower. In the meanwhile, as per the petitioners, the Government of Odish

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