Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Niranjan Behera – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of appointment and claim for regularization (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. rejection of claim based on interim orders (Para 4) |
| 3. directions for fresh decision on regularization (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the impugned order dated 04.08.2021, so issued under Annexure-11 by Opp. Party No.1. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services, has been rejected inter alia on the ground that since petitioners continued in their services because of the interim order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.4031(C) of 1997 and 3469(C) of 1997, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1 , petitioners are not eligible to get the benefit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners were engaged as against the post of Peon on 44 days basis vide order of appointment issued on 22.02.1996 and 22.01.1996 under Annexure-1 series. It is contended t
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 temporary employment in a sanctioned post qualifies employees for regularization when no lawful recruitment process is conducted, affirming their rights and job security.
Prolonged temporary employment without regularization contravenes labor rights; employers must ensure fair and stable employment as mandated by judicial principles.
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....
Continuous employment in essential roles exhibits grounds for regularization, defying exploitative temporary contracts in violation of constitutional labor rights.
Workers with perennial roles must be recognized for regularization without exploiting temporary classifications, aligning with constitutional obligations of fair treatment under employment law.
Long-term daily wage employees, after 10 years of service, are entitled to regularization as established by Supreme Court principles in employment law.
Continuous and uninterrupted service of temporary employees qualifies them for regularisation, as upheld by apex court judgments emphasizing fairness in employment practices.
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
