Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ori) 81

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
Madan Mohan Patra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha & Others – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.19676 Of 2023
Decided On : 11-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. Behera, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.P. Das, ASC., Adv.

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 Articles 14, 16, and 21.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Employment Law - Regularization of Temporary Employees - Petitioner, appointed as Data Entry Operator in 2006, challenged rejection of regularization claim by the Government, which was based on initial engagement not adhering to G.A. Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013. The Court found the rejection unjustified, emphasizing principles from Supreme Court rulings indicating that authorities should not exploit temporary contracts for positions that are permanent in nature. (Paras 3.5, 5.2)

(B) Employment Rights - The State as Employer - The Court reiterated the obligation of the State as a model employer to ensure fair treatment and security for employees, particularly those in perennial roles, criticizing the use of temporary contracts to avoid regularization. (Paras 3.6, 3.9)

(C) Legislative Standards - It was noted that any contractual stipulation cannot supersede constitutional protections; long-term employees should not face arbitrary disengagement based on contractual technicalities. (Paras 3.6, 3.10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Data Entry Operator on a contractual basis in 2006 and claimed regularization as stipulated by a G.A. Department Resolution. His claim was rejected on grounds of non-compliance with said resolution despite continuous employment.

Findings of Court:
The Court quashed the rejection order and directed the State to regularize the petitioner within three months, finding the grounds for rejection unsustainable under law.

Issues: The Court addressed the legality of the rejection of the regularization claim and the obligation of the State as an employer to provide fair employment practices.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the foundation for long engagement in a role dictates entitlements to security and regularization, underscoring the principle that arbitrary state action is unconstitutional.

Result: Writ Petition allowed, and the Government directed to regularize the petitioner's service.

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 :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 24.05.2023, so issued by the Govt.-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-16. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of regularization has been rejected.

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.

3.1. Accordingly, finding no alternative, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5309 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 24.02.2023 under Annexure-14, when directed the Opp. Party No.1 to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim taking into account the Resolution issued on 17.09.2013 under Annexure-8 and the recommendation made on 02.08.2014 under Annexure-11 series, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated 24.05.2023 under Annexure-16 only on the ground that the very initial engagement of the petitioner since is not in accordance with the stipulation contained in Resolution dated 17.09.2013, petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization. The ground of rejection so reflected in the impugned order reads as follows:

“(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.

(ii) Such contractual appointments/engagements must have been made following the recruitment procedure prescribed for the corresponding regular posts.

(iii) Principles of reservation of posts must have been followed in case of such contractual appointments/engagements.”

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner however contended that on the face of such rejection of his claim for regularisation, petitioner is continuing on contractual basis as on date. It is accordingly contended that, since petitioner is continuing on contractual basis in terms of order dated 17.02.2006 till date, in view of the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others , 2026 INSC 99, the ground on which petitioner’s claim has been rejected, is no more sustainable.

3.3. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as follows:-

“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitati