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
| 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
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi
State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.