Regularisation may be granted to long-serving employees in irregular appointments, affirming constitutional principles that prevent exploitation and ensure fairness in employment practices.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.15096 of 2014, whereby the writ petition filed by the present respondent was allowed and the Appellants were directed to consider and grant the benefit of regularisation in favour of the writ petitioner, holding that the rejection of his claim for regularisation was unsustainable in law.

2. In view of the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by this Court, it is noted that pursuant to the conditional order earlier passed, the appellants-State have deposited the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Odisha State Legal Services Authority (OSLSA). The said compliance having been made, and the cause shown by the appellants for the delay in preferring the writ appeal is accepted. Consequently, the delay of 354 days in filing the writ appeal vide I.A. No.101 of 2025 stands condoned, and the appeal is taken up for consideration on merits.

3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case record.

4. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that the respondent was initially engaged as a Data Entry Operator under the DRDA, Jagatsinghpur, in the year 1999-2000 and continued to discharge his duties uninterruptedly for 26 years. His services were availed continuously without the intervention of any interim order of a court or tribunal. The record further discloses that the respondent was paid from time to time for the work performed by him and his engagement was not a sporadic or casual arrangement in the true sense, but one dictated by the perennial requirement of the establishment.

5. The learned Single Judge, upon a detailed examination of the pleadings and the law on the subject, came to a categorical finding that the rejection of the respondent’s claim for regularisation was primarily founded on two grounds, namely, that his initial engagement was irregular and that there was no sanctioned post. It was further held that the authorities could not supplement the reasons contained in the impugned order by way of counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge has appreciated the ratio ofSecretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi , (2006) 4 SCC 1;State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 ; Nihal Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. , (2013) 14 SCC 65; Sheo Narain Nagar and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. , (2018) 13 SCC 432, and other binding precedents, which clearly hold that while illegal appointments cannot be regularised, irregular appointments of long-standing nature, where employees have worked for ten years or more against available work requirements and without the protection of court orders, deserve consideration as a one-time measure. The impugned judgment records a clear finding that the respondent’s engagement was, at best, irregular and not illegal, and that the authorities themselves continued to exploit his services for years together without undertaking the mandated regularisation exercise.

6. The contention raised by the appellants that there was no sanctioned post available also does not impress this Court. The very fact that the respondent was continuously engaged for data entry work over a long period belies the plea that no work or no post existed. As consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State cannot take advantage of its own wrong by pleading absence of sanctioned posts after having extracted work for years together on exploitative terms.

7. Equally untenable is the argument that regularisation would run contrary to the constitutional scheme under Articles 14 and 16. The law po