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) 643

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.K. Swain
For the Respondent: S.B. Panda

Long-serving employees engaged under judicial orders are entitled to regularisation despite initial irregularities, emphasizing fairness and continuous service.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Service law - The Petitioner, engaged as Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper since 1996, claimed regularisation of service and equal pay for equal work, citing the State's continuous acceptance of his service governed by judicial directions. Orders of Administrative Tribunal and Director rejecting his claims were quashed for ignoring the nature of service rendered and principles of fairness in public employment. (Paras 12-18)

(B) The Supreme Court’s rulings in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari, and Jaggo vs. Union of India, impose conditions for entitlement to regularisation, yet exceptions exist for long-serving employees under judicial protection. Court stressed continuous requirement of work and fairness in employment as paramount considerations. (Paras 7, 8, 10, 13)

(C) The State’s argument on the legality of Petitioner’s initial appointment acknowledged; however, reliance on such arguments was deemed misplaced given the duration of service and acceptance by the State. Burden of proof shifted as fairness and reasonableness took precedence. (Paras 12-15)

(D)

Result: Orders dated 28.06.2019 and 27.07.2022 quashed; Petitioner to be regularised within two months. Continual service without interruption prescribed until regularisation.

Table of Content
1. writ petitions concerning service claims are intertwined. (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioner's extensive service and lack of regularization. (Para 4)
3. petitioner's sustained service merits regularization. (Para 5)
4. state's opposition centers on non-sanctioned appointment. (Para 6)
5. judicial orders protect continued service rights. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
6. supreme court principles apply to long-serving workers. (Para 11 , 13)
7. court quashes orders for failing to recognize service. (Para 14 , 15)
8. court directs regularization of the petitioner's service. (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 ord

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