Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
PADMANAV MISHRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ODISHA – Respondent
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 Stati
Long-serving employees engaged under judicial orders are entitled to regularisation despite initial irregularities, emphasizing fairness and continuous service.
Long and uninterrupted service under judicial protection legitimizes claims for regularization in public employment, irrespective of initial engagement irregularities.
Long-term casual employees performing perennial duties should be regularized despite administrative inertia, ensuring adherence to employment principles established in earlier legal precedents.
Long-term service in sanctioned positions can warrant regularization despite age limitations in recruitment, emphasizing continuity and eligibility for qualified employees.
The court established that continuous service post-reinstatement qualifies an employee for regularization, despite prior court intervention.
The court ruled that past services of an employee cannot be disregarded for regularization if they meet the criteria set by government circulars and Supreme Court directives.
Long-term, continuous service in sanctioned posts must be considered for regularisation as per judicial precedents, regardless of procedural irregularities.
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
