Prolonged contractual service in a perennial role, spanning over two decades, confers a legitimate expectation of regularization. Where initial recruitment failed to follow all statutory protocols but the appointment was not inherently illegal, such services must be regularized to prevent exploitation and ensure labor dignity.

Headnote:(A) Employment Law - Contractual employees - Regularization - Entitlement - Employees engaged on a contractual basis for over two decades for perennial roles - Seeking regularization pursuant to government policies - State submitted that appointments were not against sanctioned posts and without regular recruitment - Held, persistent usage of contractual labour for perennial work without regular recruitment is deprecated as exploitative - Long-standing service confers an entitlement for absorption - Procedural lapses during initial recruitment stage constitute irregularity rather than illegality - Requirement to ensure job security after significantly prolonged continuous tenure. (Paras 6, 8, 10, 16, 17, 18)

(B) Judicial Review - Writ Jurisdiction - Powers under constitutional provisions - Discretionary relief - Court may direct regularization or creation of supernumerary posts for employees with multi-decadal tenure to prevent perpetual contractual employment - Shift from narrow technical interpretation to substantive justice ensuring fair labour practices. (Paras 6, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, employed as drivers on a contractual basis for over twenty-one years, sought regularization of their services relying on governmental resolutions. The governing authorities contested this claim, asserting that the appointments were not made against sanctioned posts and did not follow the required open competitive recruitment processes, thereby rendering the claimants ineligible for permanent status.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the nature of work was perennial and the duration of continuous service exceeded two decades. It held that the appointments were irregular rather than illegal. The court concluded that sustained reliance on contractual labor for core functions while denying security of tenure is contrary to the mandate of fairness and justice, noting that technical procedural gaps do not forfeit the right to regular treatment after such an extensive duration of service.

Issues: The central issue was whether contractual employees who have served for over two decades are eligible for regularization when initial appointment processes did not strictly conform to sanctioned post protocols or open recruitment criteria.

Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged contractual service in a perennial role confers a legitimate expectation of regularization; where technical procedural deficits exist in initial recruitment, such appointments are categorized as irregular rather than illegal, necessitating judicial intervention to rectify employment exploitation and ensure dignity of labor.

Result: Petition allowed with directions for the concerned authority to conclude the process of regularization or creation of supernumerary posts within eight weeks.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 22321 of 2020 Ajay Kumar Sahoo & others …. Petitioners Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate -

-Versus State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA CORAM:

JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING:29.01.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:15.05.2026

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners with a direction to the opposite party to forthwith issue orders of regularization of their services as Drivers in the establishment with effect from 17^th September, 2013 in the scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1500/- with usual allowances admissible as per G.A. Department Resolution dated 17^th September, 2013 in the same manner as other similarly situated contractual Drivers have been allowed in terms of Annexure-4 series and the decisions of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vrs. Umadevi (3) & others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L. Kesari & others (2010) 9 SCC 247 besides the order in W.P.(C) No.20629 of 2020.

2. The petitioners were allowed to continue as DLR Drivers in Finance Department until 28^th February, 2006 and thereafter, they were posted as Direct Contractual Drivers w.e.f. 1^st March, 2006 to 31^st August, 2006 vide office order dated 9^th March, 2006 of the Finance Department and after 31^st August, 2006, they continued in their posts with enhanced consolidated remuneration and thereafter, their further engagement was extended on annual contract basis. During the continuance of their services, the G.A. Department Resolution dated 17^th September, 2013 arrived, it is pleaded that since all of them fulfilled the conditions/criteria stipulated therein, upon completion of six years of contractual service, are entitled to regular appointment with only formal orders issued in their favour. It is claimed that in view of the Resolution (supra), in various departments of the Government, contractual employees including the Drivers and their services have been regularized after completion of six years of continuous service. The claim is that the petitioners are similarly situated and hence, are to be extended parity. Referring to the regularization of service of contractual employees pursuant to the decision in O.A. No.2172 (C) of 2015 and batch of cases decided on 17^th May, 2017 upheld in W.P.(C) No.6661 of 2018 and finally by the Apex Court on 6^th August, 2018 and in compliance thereof, the Data Entry Operators (DEOs) in the Commercial Tax Organization have been regularized with retrospective effect, but the petitioners were denied and for that they filed O.A. No.528 of 2016, 530 of 2016 and 531 of 2016, which were disposed of with a direction to consider their representation and to take a decision keeping in view the guidelines laid down in Umadevi (3) (supra), but once again, O.A. Nos.4364(C), 4365 (C) & 4368 (C) of 2016 had to be filed and thereafter, upon abolition of the Tribunal and transfer of the O.As to this Court, all are pending disposal. In the meantime, the present writ petition was filed demanding regularization with the claim that the petitioners have put more than 10 years of satisfactory services having an unblemished career continued without judicial intervention and orders, hence, are eligible in their respective posts in terms of the G.A. Department Resolution dated 17^th September, 2013.

3. Perused the pleadings on record.

4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

5. The contention is that the petitioners‟ services are to be regularized as per the G.A. Department Resolution dated 17^th September, 2013. It is contended that in Dharam Singh & others Vrs. State of U.P. & another 2025 INSC 998, the Apex Court following its judgments in Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Shripal and another Vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 read with Umadevi (3) (supra) issued direction to ensure fairness in public employment. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners cite

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 3301

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 22321 of 2020 Ajay Kumar Sahoo & others …. Petitioners-Versus-State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. A. Tripathy, AdvocateMs. B.K. Sahu, AGA CORAM:JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING:29.01.2026DATE OF JUDGMENT:15.05.2026

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 22321 of 2020

Ajay Kumar Sahoo & others …. Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha …. Opposite Party

Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate
Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA

CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

DATE OF HEARING:29.01.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:15.05.2026