IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4629 of 2023 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

………………

Bankabihari Mohanty …. Petitioner -versus-

State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC PRESENT:

THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing:04.05.2026 and Date of Judgment:04.05.2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Heard Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 23.12.2022 so passed by O.P.

No.1 under Annexure-7. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of regularization pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.21658 of 2022 was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was engaged on consolidated salary basis as a part time Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3 vide order dated 09.08.1991 under Annexure-1. It is contended that even though petitioner was allowed to continue on contractual wage basis as a part time Sweeper-cum- Night Watchman w.e.f. 09.08.1991, but he was never regularized in his services in terms of the stipulation contained in the Finance Department Resolution Dated

15.05.1997, so available under Annexure-2.

3.1. However, taking into account the fact that petitioner’s engagement is prior to 12.04.1993 i.e. the cut-off date fixed by the Finance Department in its Resolution dated 15.05.1997 and pursuant to the Resolution dated 04.09.2012, so issued by the Finance Department under Annexure-3, petitioner was given temporary status vide office order dated 26.03.2018 under Annexure-4 of Opp. Party No.2.

3.2. However, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of regularization on the face of his continuance as a part time Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman w.e.f. 09.08.1991 when was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21658 of 2022. This Court vide order dated 20.09.2022, when directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1, State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari (2010) 9 SCC 247, Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015 (8) SCC 265 and Nihal Singh Vrs. State of Punjab, 2013 (14) SCC 65, such claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated

23.12.2022 under Annexure-7.

3.3. 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 o