Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Biswanath Das – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner was engaged as an ad hoc peon since 1992. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. court analysis finds petitioner eligible for regularization. (Para 6) |
| 3. court quashes rejection order and directs regularization. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging office order dtd.22.10.2021 so issued by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-8. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization has been rejected.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was engaged as a Peon on ad hoc basis with spell of 44 days starting from April 1992. Even though he was allowed to continue as such on ad hoc basis and was not regularized, Petitioner approached the Tribunal initially by filing O.A. No.672(C) of 2000. The Tribunal vide order dtd.23.02.2000 while disposing the O.A passed the following order:-
"Heard. Taken up on mention. The applicant is working as a peon (apparently on ad hoc ma capacity as seen from his appointment orders) in spells
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 reaffirmed that long-standing temporary employees, performing essential duties, must be regularized, rejecting claims of irregularity based solely on appointment processes without addressin....
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.
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 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....
Continuous employment in essential roles exhibits grounds for regularization, defying exploitative temporary contracts in violation of constitutional labor rights.
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....
Long-term adhoc employees have a right to regularization and benefits, as arbitrary continuation of their engagement undermines fairness and violates constitutional principles of employment.
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
