The State, acting as a model employer, cannot deny regularisation solely due to the lack of a sanctioned post for employees performing perennial duties for long periods, as doing so is arbitrary and violates the constitutional principles of fairness and equal protection.

1. Heard.

2. By means of this Writ Appeal, the Appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.33088 of 2020, whereby the writ petition preferred by the Respondent was allowed and the authorities were directed to revoke the order of termination issued against her and to re-examine the question of regularisation of her service in accordance with law.

3. I.A. No.1686 of 2025 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 221 days in filing the present writ appeal. Considering the averments made in the I.A. and upon hearing learned counsel for the Appellants, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned.

4. Having heard the learned AGA, the principal contention advanced on behalf of the Appellants is that the Respondent, being a contractual employee not appointed against a sanctioned post, had no enforceable right either to continue in service or to seek regularisation and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the order of termination.

5. The factual backdrop of the case reveals that the Respondent was initially engaged as a Pharmacist Fellow on 07.02.2006 and continued in service till issuance of the order of termination dated 23.11.2020, thereby rendering more than fourteen years of continuous service. The record further discloses that following merger of the Pain and Palliative Care Unit with the Department of Anaesthesiology of Acharya Harihar Regional Cancer Centre Hospital, Cuttack, the Respondent continued to discharge duties as a Pharmacist. It is also not in dispute that the competent authority had, on more than one occasion, recommended her case for regularisation. The Respondent had approached this Court earlier seeking consideration of her claim for regularisation. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and in view of the Odisha Pharmacist Service (Methods of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019, the process relating to preparation and finalisation of the gradation list was underway. It was during the pendency of such exercise that the Respondent came to be terminated on the ground that she was working against a non-sanctioned post.

6. The materials on record further indicate that by the relevant point of time the Respondent had already completed more than six years of contractual service. G.A. Department Resolution No.26018 dated 17.09.2013 contemplated that upon satisfactory completion of six years of contractual service, the concerned employee would be deemed to have been regularly appointed, with a formal order of appointment to be issued by the appointing authority. Whether the Respondent ultimately satisfied every requirement for regularisation is not the issue before us. The significance of the aforesaid Resolution lies in the fact that her claim for regularisation was neither illusory nor speculative. It was a claim recognised by the governing policy framework and was, in fact, under active consideration of the authorities themselves.

7. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 INSC 998, wherein, relying upon the earlier decisions in Jaggo vs. Union of India , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal & another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and State of Karnataka v