IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Bikram Pradhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Heard Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A.N. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer
“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, issue notice to the opposite parties, and after hearing both sides, further be pleased to allow the writ petition;
And issue writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to consider the representations of the petitioner vide Annexure-1 series within a period stipulated and/or regularize the services of the petitioner as a peon;
And issue writ of prohibition to the opposite parties from retrenching the petitioner from his services;
And pass such other writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s)/declaration(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that by facing due recruitment process, petitioner was appointed as a contractual Peon in the establishment of Gopabandhu Academy of Administrati
Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others
Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others
The State must uphold fair employment practices, ensuring that longstanding contractual employees receive regularization if their roles are recurring and essential to the organization.
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 court emphasized the importance of regularizing long-serving temporary employees to ensure compliance with fairness principles and constitutional protections in employment.
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 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....
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.
Long-term temporary employees engaged in essential work must be regularized after sustained service, as continuous unjust denial violates constitutional rights.
Continuous employment in essential roles exhibits grounds for regularization, defying exploitative temporary contracts in violation of constitutional labor rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.