IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 1381 of 2025 State of Odisha and Others …. Appellants Mr. S. B. Panda, AGA -versus-

Tapan Kumar Sahu …. Respondent Ms. B. K. Pattanaik, Advocate CORAM:

JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No. 17.02.2026

01. I.A. No.35 65 of 2025 There is a delay of 217 days in filing the writ appeal. An application, being I.A. No. 3565 of 2023, supported by an affidavit, accompanies the memorandum of appeal, wherein the delay has been plausibly explained. Condonation of the delay would not prejudice the case of the other side, inasmuch as the matter would be heard on merits, however, refusal to condone the delay would result in ousting the Appellants from the Court, which a Court exercising writ appellate jurisdiction ought not to do.

In the above circumstances, application in I.A. No. 3565 of 2025 having been favoured, delay in filing the Writ Appeal is condoned.

(Krishna Shripad Dixit)

Judge (Chittaranjan Dash)

Judge W.A. No. 1381 of 2025 The State and its Officials are preferring this appeal aggrieved by the learned Single Judge’s Common Order dated 04.12.2024, whereby Respondent’s W.P.(C) No.27897 of 2021 having been favoured, the following relief has been accorded:

“6. It is admitted that, both the Petitioners are still continuing on consolidated remuneration till date pursuant to their initial appointment dated 2.12.2011 as Gardeners. In the meantime, the Group-C and Group-D Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 has already been repealed. Therefore, considering the principles as decided in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the subsequent decisions, it is directed to regularize the service of the Petitioners, who are continuing for more than 13 years in the same post, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

2. Learned AGA appearing for the Appellants fervently submits that learned Single Judge grossly erred in according the relief of regularization in terms of the decision in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1; he also points out that all posts having been abolished vide Government Resolution dated 19.05.2010, the regularisation could not have been directed at all, when contractual appointment was the mode of engagement. He also draws our attention to Rule 5(2) of Odisha Group-C and Group-D Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013, which reads as follows:

“5. Recruitment Procedure: (1) Recruitment to the posts shall be made on the basis of the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules or executive instructions, as the case may be in force.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant recruitment rules or executive instructions, as the case may be in force all appointments made pursuant to sub-rule (1) shall, from the date of commencement of these rules, be on contract basis”

3. Learned counsel for the Respondent-employee makes submissions in justification of the impugned order, contending that this is a textbook case for regularisation in terms of Umadevi (supra), even if the ratio in Jaggo vs. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034 and Shripal vs. Nagar Nigam, Gajiabad, MANU/SC/0139/2025 is not invocable. He also draws our attention to the Resolution dated 17.09.2013, which was part of the record before the learned Single Judge, to countenance his submission that in terms of Paragraph-2(1), his client is entitled to regularisation after completion of six years, as distinguished from the period of 10 years contemplated under Umadevi (supra). He adds that there exists a vacancy in the post in question. There was a public advertisement pursuant to which his client staked his claim for engagement; the competent authority, after verifying the credentials as to eligibility and qualification, engaged him. At this length of time, denying the relief of regularisation would be very unjust and, therefore, the appeal of the State should b