Case Law
Subject : Service Law - Regularization of Service
The judgment, dated May 13, 2025, allows Mr.
Mr.
Aggrieved, Mr.
Appellant's Counsel, M/s. Prasanta Kumar Mishra, K.L. Kar and
* Mr.
* The abolition of the post was arbitrary, especially since the RTO, Chandikhole, on the very next day (December 21, 2019), highlighted the necessity of a Process Server and sought permission to engage one.
* The Finance Department OM dated 31.08.2019 did not intend to abolish posts where personnel were already in position or where the posts were not genuinely redundant.
* The Single Judge erred in treating the appointment as contractual and misapplied legal precedents, overlooking the long, continuous service.
* Mr.
Respondent's Counsel, Mr. Bimbisar Dash (Additional Government Advocate), submitted:
* He conceded that the appellant was continuing as a Process Server/Peon on an ad-hoc basis since 1997.
* The disengagement was a consequence of a policy decision by the State Government (Finance Department OM dated 31.08.2019) to abolish surplus/redundant Group-D posts.
The Division Bench meticulously analyzed the facts and legal provisions, finding several grounds to interfere with the Single Judge's order and the State's actions.
Flawed Post Abolition: The Court found that the decision to abolish the post of Process Server was not in consonance with the Finance Department OM dated 31.08.2019.
* The OM specified termination of "vacant Group ‘D’ Posts" or "redundant posts" where men-in-position would lead to termination after retirement . The Court noted, "As the appellant has been in position since 1997 and was continuing, the post of Process Server-cum-Peon could not be suggested as redundant." (Para 7.11)
* The RTO's immediate request for a Process Server post-abolition indicated the continued need for the role, suggesting non-application of mind by the administrative department. The Court stated, "When the material available on record demonstrates that the role of a Process Server/Peon is indispensable... the competent authority of administrative department has not applied his mind while suggesting for abolition of the post..." (Para 7.10)
Perversity in Single Judge's Findings: The Division Bench identified several "perversities" in the Single Judge's judgment:
* Treating the appellant's appointment as "contractual" and on "consolidated pay," despite evidence of ad-hoc engagement against a sanctioned post with a regular pay scale, grade pay, and D.A.
* Consequently, misapplying precedents related to purely contractual engagements like
* Incorrectly concluding that the employer had not taken a policy decision for outsourcing, contrary to the Finance Department OM's explicit mention of outsourcing as a reason for terminating vacant Group-D posts.
Entitlement to Regularization:
The Court heavily relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in
The judgment extensively cited recent Supreme Court rulings like
The Orissa High Court concluded:
1. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 06.09.2024 was set aside.
2. The Government's Letter dated 20.12.2019 abolishing the post of Process Server in RTO, Chandikhole, and the consequential disengagement Order No.4392 dated 21.12.2019, were set aside.
3. The appellant, if disengaged, is to be reinstated forthwith.
4. The respondents are directed to consider the appellant's service for regularization, as he has been in the position against a sanctioned post since January 16, 1997.
5. The appellant is entitled to all consequential service and financial benefits, to be granted within three months.
This judgment serves as a strong reminder to state instrumentalities about their obligations as model employers and the judiciary's role in protecting employees from arbitrary administrative actions, especially those who have dedicated substantial periods of their careers in public service, albeit on an ad-hoc basis.
#ServiceLaw #Regularization #EmployeeRights #OrissaHighCourt
MP HC Directs Magistrate Probe and Police Affidavits on Alleged Illegal Detention in Cross-State Arrest: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
30 Apr 2026
Madras High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Film Leak
30 Apr 2026
Pendency of EP Against One Judgment Debtor No Bar to Proceed Against Guarantor: Andhra Pradesh High Court
30 Apr 2026
PIL Dismissed with ₹25K Costs for Concealing Credentials & Pending Criminal Cases: Allahabad High Court
30 Apr 2026
Supreme Court Orders Action Against Noida Bar Strikes
30 Apr 2026
No Sane Person De-Boards Running Train: Gujarat HC Upholds Rs 8 Lakh Compensation under Section 124A Railways Act
30 Apr 2026
Failure to Frame Specific Issues Under Section 13 HMA Leads to 'Ballpark Assessment': Patna High Court Remands Divorce Case
30 Apr 2026
Physical Assault and Threats Creating Psychological Fear Attract Section 8 Goa Children's Act: Bombay HC at Goa Refuses FIR Quashing
30 Apr 2026
Habeas Corpus Inapplicable to Child Custody Disputes Needing Detailed Welfare Inquiry: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Age Restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) Surrogacy Act Not Retrospective for Pre-2022 Couples: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.