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 highlighting the obligation of the state to regularize such roles.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Pursuant to the order dt.28.07.2025, instruction provided by the Department vide letter dt.18.08.2025 so produced in Court be kept on record.

3. Sinc the issue involved in the present case is similar and claim of all the Petitioners for their regularisation in service was rejected vide a common order passed by the Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Odisha-Opp. Party No.1 on 09.05.2022, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that all the Petitioners were engaged as NMRs in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 starting from 1995 onwards. It is also the case of the Petitioners that since their initial engagement as NMRs starting from 1995, they are continuing as such in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 without any break in engagement till date. While Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.17395 of 2022 was engaged on 11.01.1995; Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.4705 of 2024 on 01.05.1997; Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.4711 of 2024 on 03.06.1995; Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.4741 of 2024 on 01.01.2002; Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.4744 of 2024 on 01.01.2002, Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.4820 of 2024 on 01.08.1998; Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.4879 of 2024 on 01.01.2000; Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.4889 of 2024 on 01.05.2002; Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.4924 of 2024 on 01.01.2002; Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.5072 of 2024 on 01.01.2003; Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.5206 of 2024 on 01.12.1995 and Petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.5256 of 2024 on 21.05.2002.

4.1. It is contended that even though the Petitioners were allowed to continue as NMRs without any break starting from the year 1995 onwards, but they were never regularised in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC-1 , State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Keshari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 , Nihal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2013) (14) SCC 65, Amarkant Rai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2015 (8) SCC 265 and Finance Department Resolution dt.15.05.1997.

4.2. It is contended that in the case of Uma Devi Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-44 has held as follows:-

“44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (Supra), and referred to in paragraph-15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one- time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be no further b