SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ori) 633

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK 
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, CHITTARANJAN DASH, JJ.
Padmanava Mishra - Petitioner 
Versus
State of Odisha and Others - Opp. Parties 
W.P.(C) No.12702 of 2019, W.P.(C) No.27979 of 2022
Decided On : 29-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. K. K. Swain, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. S. B. Panda, AGA

Long and uninterrupted service under judicial protection legitimizes claims for regularization in public employment, irrespective of initial engagement irregularities.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21 - Service law - Claim for regularization and equal pay for equal work - Petitioner engaged since 1996 as Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper; regularization denied on grounds of being part-time, not against sanctioned post; court ruled that long uninterrupted service under judicial protection warrants regularization, rejecting technical objections. (Paras 8, 12, 14, 16)

(B) Public Employment - Fairness and transparency in public employment is a two-way obligation; the State should function as a model employer, especially when employees have rendered long service against perennial work. (Paras 11, 15)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner engaged as Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper since 01.03.1996, claiming regularization and equal pay due to long service and persistent engagement under judicial guidance, facing successive rejections. (Paras 4, 5)

Findings of Court:
Orders rejecting regularization quashed; Petitioner entitled to regularization against appropriate post and all consequential benefits. (Paras 16, 18)

Issues: Whether the Petitioner is entitled to regularization and equal pay for work rendered as part-time employee against a sanctioned post. (Paras 6, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: Court asserts that prolonged uninterrupted service legitimizes claims for regularization despite initial irregularities; fair employment demands State recognize employee contributions over technicalities. (Paras 12, 14)

Result: Both Writ Petitions allowed.

Table of Content
1. common facts about petitions and service claims (Para 2 , 4)
2. arguments for and against regularization of service (Para 5 , 6)
3. court's analysis of legality and fairness in employment (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. ratio decidendi regarding regularization (Para 14 , 15)
5. conclusion to quash prior orders and regularize employment (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

Judgment :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. The present writ petitions, W.P.(C) No.27979 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.12702 of 2019, involving common parties, substantially overlapping facts and interconnected issues, are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

W.P.(C) No.12702 of 2019 has been filed assailing the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A. No.883(C) of 2016, whereby the claim of the Petitioner for regularisation of service and grant of equal pay for equal work was rejected.

W.P.(C) No.27979 of 2022 has been filed calling in question the subsequent order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Director, Economics and Statistics, Odisha, rejecting the Petitioner’s claim for regularisation in purported compliance with earlier directions of this Court.

3. In view of the fact that both the writ petitions pertain to the service claim of the same Petitioner and challenge successive orders passed at different stages, they are disposed of together by this common judgment.

4. The Petitioner was initially engaged on 01.03.1996 as a Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper in the office of the District Statistical Officer, Khordha, against a vacant post which had been created by the State Government earlier on 30.07.1994. Since his initial engagement, the Petitioner continued to discharge the duties attached to the said post uninterruptedly. From time to time, the District Statistical Officer recommended his case to the higher authorities for engagement on ad hoc or temporary basis as well as for enhancement of remuneration. Despite long continuation in service, the Petitioner’s status was not regularised. Aggrieved thereby, he approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2077(C) of 2007, which was disposed of on 20.09.2007 with a direction to pay him daily wages at the minimum rate for the entire period of service rendered and to allow him to continue, if there was a vacant post and a continuous requirement of work. Alleging non-compliance of the said order, the Petitioner thereafter initiated contempt proceedings. Instead of implementing the Tribunal’s direction, the post of Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper was transferred by order dated 21.01.2011 from the office of the District Statistical Officer, Khordha to another establishment. The Petitioner challenged the said order by filing O.A. No.444(C) of 2011, which, upon abolition of the Tribunal, stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as WPC (OAC) No.444 of 2011. By order dated 09.02.2022, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the authorities to consider the Petitioner’s case for regularisation in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi , (2006) 4 SCC 1,State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 , andAmarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 265

In the meantime, the Petitioner had again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.883(C) of 2016 seeking regularisation of service and equal pay for equal work. The said application came to be dismissed by order dated 28.06.2019, holding that the Petitioner was a part-time sweeper and not engaged against a sanctioned post. Challenging the said order, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.12702 of 2019, which is one of the writ petitions under consideration.

Pursuant to the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by this Court in WPC (OAC) No.444 of 2011, the Petitioner submitted representations to the competent authorities seeking regularisation. During the pendency of such consideration, a po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top