Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
KRISHNA S.DIXIT, CHITTARANJAN DASH
State of Odisha – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Kumar Palei – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the learned single judge's order for regularization. (Para 1) |
| 2. appellants argue against regularization citing contract rules. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondent defends eligibility and claims valid appointment. (Para 3) |
| 4. court rejects the appeal and supports the learned single judge's decision. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT :
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J :
This Appeal by the State and its functionaries seeks to call in question the learned Single Judge’s order dated 16.09.2021 whereby the following relief has been accorded to the Respondent-employee:
“The opposite parties are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner and grant all consequential service and financial benefits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.”
2. Learned AGA appearing for the Appellants vehemently argues that relief of the kind could not have been granted to the Respondent- employee in the face of the Odisha Group-C and Group-D Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013. He highlights that under Rule 5 of these Rules, the post in question attracts only contractual appointment and therefore, the ques
Regularization of employee services is warranted where qualifications are verified and appointments were made by the competent authority, despite contractual provisions, especially when earlier judgm....
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
The court held that longstanding irregularities in public service appointments may be remedied through regularization, affirming employees' legitimate expectations and emphasizing the principle of fa....
Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.
Regularisation may be granted to long-serving employees in irregular appointments, affirming constitutional principles that prevent exploitation and ensure fairness in employment practices.
Ad hoc canteen employees ineligible for regularization without meeting 1991 cut-off; long service via judicial orders does not confer rights.
Long-standing casual workers may be entitled to regularization under policies issued by the State if they meet duration and vacancy requirements, highlighting protection against arbitrary dismissals.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider the regularization of the petitioner's services in line with previous judgments and the directions issued by the court.
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
