The court affirmed the obligations of the State to regularize long-serving employees in essential roles, emphasizing fair employment practices and adherence to constitutional provisions.

ORDER :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was engaged as a NMR/DLR in Jagatsinghpur Municipality w.e.f. 12.03.1992 and such engagement of the petitioner is prior to cut off date so fixed by the Finance Department in its Resolution dated 15.05.1997.

3.1. It is contended that even though petitioner continued as a DLR/NMR w.e.f. 12.03.1992, but instead of regularizing him as against the post of Sweeper on creation of 1999 posts in different Urban Local Bodies of the State by the Govt. in the Housing and Urban Development Department vide its communication dated 17.10.2012 under Annexure-1, petitioner was brought over to the work charged establishment vide order dated 22.01.2013. In the said order, petitioner’s name finds place at Sl. No.4.

3.2. It is further contended that even though petitioner is continuing as a DLR/NMR w.e.f. 12.03.1992 and as a work charged employee w.e.f. 22.01.2013, but petitioner is yet to get the benefit of regularization.

3.3. It is contended that claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation is covered by the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court not only in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1 and State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 , but also by the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018.

3.4. View expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi in Para-44 has held as follows:-

“44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (Supra), and referred to in paragraph-15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one- time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”

3.5. Similarly Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.L. Keshari in Para- 8 and 13 has held as follows:-

“8. Umadevi (3) casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or