Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Dillip Kumar Samal – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization so passed by Opp. Party No.1 vide his order dated 05.08.2023 under Annexure-9.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was appointed as an adhoc Typist in the establishment of Opp. Party No.2 vide order of appointment issued on 23.03.1991 under Annexure-1. It is contended that petitioner was so appointed on adhoc basis against a regular vacant post and basing on such order, he was allowed to continue without any break in engagement.
3.1. Subsequently, vide office order dated 11.08.1995 under Annexure-3, petitioner was allowed to continue against the existing vacancy on 89 days basis with regular scale of pay along with D.A. and other allowances as sanctioned by the Govt. from time to time.
3.2. It is contended that on the face of such continuance on adhoc basis w.e.f. 23.03.1991, petitioner when was not regularized in his services, he approached the Tribunal by fi
Long-term adhoc employees have a right to regularization and benefits, as arbitrary continuation of their engagement undermines fairness and violates constitutional principles of employment.
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.
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.
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.
Regularization of employees must consider equitable treatment and the rights of long-serving individuals, given principles of fairness under the Constitution.
Long-term daily wage employees, after 10 years of service, are entitled to regularization as established by Supreme Court principles in employment law.
Continuous and uninterrupted service of temporary employees qualifies them for regularisation, as upheld by apex court judgments emphasizing fairness in employment practices.
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....
Prolonged temporary employment without regularization contravenes labor rights; employers must ensure fair and stable employment as mandated by judicial principles.
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
