Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Pramod Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the basis for challenging rejection. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's employment history and claims for regularization. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondent's arguments for upholding the rejection. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's analysis leading to the decision. (Para 5) |
| 5. judgment outcome and directives. (Para 6) |
Judgment :
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Pradhan-3, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos.2 and 3-Housing Board.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was engaged as a Daily Wage Driver on 44 days basis vide order of appointment issued on 07.08.1993 under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner joined as a Daily Wage Driver on 44 days basis on 13.08.1993.
3.2. It is contended that vide order dated 04.01.2021, this Court when directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim for his absorption in the regular establishment by following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1 , State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 and Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015 (8) SCC 265 , such claim of the petitioner wa
State employment practices must not exploit temporary contracts for permanent roles, as established by previous Supreme Court rulings advocating job security and regularization for long-term workers.
Prolonged temporary employment in essential roles undermines workers' rights; continuous service mandates regularization, countering exploitative practices.
Continuous and uninterrupted service of temporary employees qualifies them for regularisation, as upheld by apex court judgments emphasizing fairness in employment practices.
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.
Long-term daily wage employees, after 10 years of service, are entitled to regularization as established by Supreme Court principles in employment law.
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....
The court affirmed the principle that continuous employment in essential roles requires regularization, emphasizing that temporary contracts must not bypass the rights of workers for stable employmen....
Continuous employment in essential roles exhibits grounds for regularization, defying exploitative temporary contracts in violation of constitutional labor rights.
Long-term temporary employees engaged in essential work must be regularized after sustained service, as continuous unjust denial violates constitutional rights.
Workers with perennial roles must be recognized for regularization without exploiting temporary classifications, aligning with constitutional obligations of fair treatment under employment law.
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
