Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Pramod Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against rejection of employment claim (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts of petitioner's employment history (Para 3) |
| 3. opposition arguments citing cutoff dates (Para 4) |
| 4. court's reasoning for granting regularization (Para 5) |
| 5. final order for regularization of petitioner's position (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Pradhan-3, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos.2 and 3-Housing Board.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the petitioner’s claim for regularization vide the impugned order dated 01.09.2023, so issued under Annexure-5 by Opp. Party No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was engaged as a Daily Wage Driver on 44 days basis vide order of appointment issued on 07.08.1993 under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner joined as a Daily Wage Driver on 44 days basis on 13.08.1993.
3.1. It is contended that even though petitioner continued as Daily Wage Driver on 44 days basis w.e.f. 13.08.1993, but his claim for regularization when was not considered, petitioner approached this Court by
Prolonged temporary employment in essential roles undermines workers' rights; continuous service mandates regularization, countering exploitative practices.
State employment practices must not exploit temporary contracts for permanent roles, as established by previous Supreme Court rulings advocating job security and regularization for long-term workers.
Continuous and uninterrupted service of temporary employees qualifies them for regularisation, as upheld by apex court judgments emphasizing fairness in employment practices.
Long-term daily wage employees, after 10 years of service, are entitled to regularization as established by Supreme Court principles in employment law.
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.
The court affirmed the principle that continuous employment in essential roles requires regularization, emphasizing that temporary contracts must not bypass the rights of workers for stable employmen....
The government has a duty to regularize long-serving irregular employees due to established legal principles mandating regularization for those meeting certain criteria, thereby ensuring job security....
Continuous employment in essential roles exhibits grounds for regularization, defying exploitative temporary contracts in violation of constitutional labor rights.
The court emphasized the importance of regularizing long-serving temporary employees to ensure compliance with fairness principles and constitutional protections in employment.
Long-term temporary employees engaged in essential work must be regularized after sustained service, as continuous unjust denial violates constitutional rights.
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
