Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY, J.
Upamanyu Rout - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Odisha And Others - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022
Decided On : 08-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. S.K. Rout, A.S.C., Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate

Longstanding service in a sanctioned post establishes right to regularization despite procedural irregularities in recruitment, supporting equitable treatment of long-term employees.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Principles of regularization - Appointments - The Petitioner, engaged since 2000 as a Laboratory Assistant, sought regularization of service, quashing an order denying the same citing nonconformity with recruitment norms. Continuation without objection established requisite right for regularization. Notable judgments in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (2006) and recent reaffirmations highlight that employees in regular sanctioned posts, even under irregular engagements, should not be denied regularization. Government entities’ reliance on procedural non-compliance to deny rights contradicts principles of fairness. (Paras 11, 12, 16, 17)

Findings of Court:
The Petitioner’s uninterrupted service in a sanctioned post established entitlement to regularization. The Opposite Parties' objections, particularly regarding recruitment processes, fail in light of usage of services for over 25 years without challenge.

Issues: Key issues included whether the Petitioner's engagement met regular recruitment standards and if prior claims barred his request for regularization.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that longstanding engagement in a sanctioned post outweighs procedural arguments; the failure to regularize was unreasonable given the service rendered.

Result: Writ petition allowed, directing immediate regularization of service with benefits.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's engagement history and claims for regularization. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties' arguments about regularization rights. (Para 6 , 7)
3. acknowledgments of the petitioner's service and vacancy. (Para 9 , 10)
4. judicial precedents on regularization and employee rights. (Para 11 , 12)
5. court's reasoning against constructive res judicata for claims. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. court orders regularization of the petitioner's service. (Para 17)
7. final order to regularize petitioner's employment with benefits. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. Subir Palit, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. S.K. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Party No.1 and Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned Advocate for Opposite Parties 2 to 4.

2. The Petitioner, who is serving as Laboratory Assistant (Chemistry) in the Institute of Textile Technology, Choudwar, has prayed for regularization of his service as such quashing the impugned order dated 22.9.2021 under Annexure-7.

3. The facts of the case are that, the Petitioner initially was appointed on 1.9.2000 pursuant to advertisement dated 7.8.2000 under Anneuxre-2. Initially the Petitioner was engaged as Laboratory Assistant on contractual basis for a period of one year as per the Office Order dated 31.8.2000 under Annexure-3 and subsequently his engagement as such has been extended from time to time by issuing fresh orders of engagement. It needs to be mentioned here that, the post of Laboratory Assistant (Chemistry) in the Institute of Textile Technology (Opposite Party No.3) was a sanctioned and vacant post prior to the engagement of the Petitioner.

4. Having continued so under Opposite Party No.3, the Petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) No.13231 of 2010 praying for drawl of his remuneration at par with the counterparts continuing in similar establishments on contractual basis. This Court vide judgment dated 3.11.2017 directed to extend such benefit in favour of the Petitioner and accordingly the same was granted in favour of the Petitioner after the Opposite Parties failed in their appeal against the judgment of this Court.

5. Again in W.P.(C) No.7923 of 2021, the Petitioner approached this Court praying for regularization of his service in the post and this Court vide its order dated 09.03.2021 directed the present Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on the same. Accordingly, the prayer for regularization of the Petitioner having been considered by the Opposite Party No.2, the same was rejected in the impugned order dated 22.09.2021 (Annexure-7) mainly on the ground that the Petitioner was appointed as a single candidate without any regular process of recruitment or wide circulation of advertisement in daily newspapers.

6. Mr. S. Palit, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submits that when the engagement of the Petitioner from 31.8.2000 till date is uninterrupted and the Petitioner is continuing against the sanctioned and vacant post, the right accrues in his favour for regularization and the Opposite Parties at this stage are estopped from raising such objections on the advertisement made in the year 2000. It is further submitted that the service of the Petitioner having been used by the Opposite Parties uninterruptedly for last 25 years, the same shows the necessity of the Opposite Parties to absorb the Petitioner as the regular employee.

7. Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 2 to 4 though is not disputing the initial engagement of the Petitioner from 31.8.2000 and his continuance in the post till date uninterruptedly, but submits that each of his engagement orders issued from time to time is a fresh order and so, continuance of the Petitioner in the post cannot be taken as uninterrupted service to justify his claim for regularization. He further submits that when the Petitioner earlier approached this Court for regular remuneration along with his counterparts in the year 2010, he did not ask for his