Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Madan Mohan Patra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to rejection of regularization (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for regularization of employment (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's directive to regularize employment (Para 6) |
Judgment :
1. Heard Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was appointed as a Data Entry Operator on contractual basis vide order of appointment issued on 17.02.2006 by Opp. Party No.3. It is contended that even though petitioner on being so appointed on contractual basis was allowed to continue, but in terms of the G.A. Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013 so issued under Annexure-8, was never regularized in his services.
“(i) Contractual appointments/engagements must have been, made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department on abolition of the corresponding regular posts or contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department, without abolition of any corresponding regular post, in case of new offices or for strengthening of the existing offices/services.
(iii) Principles of reservation of posts must have been fol
The State's arbitrary rejection of a long-term temporary employee's regularization claim violates constitutional rights and obligations, emphasizing the need for fair employment practices under Artic....
Regularization of employees must consider equitable treatment and the rights of long-serving individuals, given principles of fairness under the Constitution.
Government entities must regularize long-term contractual employees in essential roles, upholding constitutional employment rights against arbitrary terminations.
The State must uphold fair employment practices, ensuring that longstanding contractual employees receive regularization if their roles are recurring and essential to the organization.
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 the importance of regularizing long-serving temporary employees to ensure compliance with fairness principles and constitutional protections in employment.
Long-term temporary employees engaged in essential work must be regularized after sustained service, as continuous unjust denial violates constitutional rights.
The regularization of long-serving contractual employees is mandated when their roles are inherently permanent, ensuring compliance with employment laws and protections against exploitation.
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....
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
