Orissa HC: Arbitrary Abolition of Post Held by 22-Year Ad-hoc Employee on Sanctioned Post Quashed; Regularization Mandated under *Umadevi* Principles - 2025-05-13

Orissa High Court Orders Regularization for Ad-hoc Peon After 22 Years, Quashes "Immature" Post Abolition

Cuttack , Odisha - In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of long-serving ad-hoc employees, the Orissa High Court has set aside a Single Bench judgment and ordered the State of Odisha to consider for regularization Mr. Ganesh Chandra Patra , who served as a Peon-cum-Process Server on an ad-hoc basis for over 22 years. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Mr. Harish Tandon and Justice Mr. Murahari Sri Raman , also quashed the government's decision to abolish the post he held, terming it "arbitrary" and an "outcome of non-application of mind."

The judgment, dated May 13, 2025, allows Mr. Patra 's appeal (WA No.2733 of 2024) against the Single Judge's order of September 6, 2024, which had dismissed his writ petition. The Court directed Mr. Patra 's reinstatement if disengaged, and the grant of all consequential service and financial benefits within three months.

Case Background: A Two-Decade Ad-hoc Service

Mr. Ganesh Chandra Patra was engaged as a Process Server (Group-D) on an ad-hoc basis in the Regional Transport Office (RTO), Chandikhole, on January 16, 1997, against a vacant sanctioned post. His service, with notional one-day breaks every 44 days, was extended periodically. Despite recommendations from the RTO for his absorption and confirmation that he was working against a sanctioned post with a regular pay scale, the Commerce and Transport (Transport) Department, citing a Finance Department Office Memorandum (OM) dated August 31, 2019, abolished his post on December 20, 2019, leading to his disengagement.

Aggrieved, Mr. Patra approached the High Court. His initial writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge, leading to the present intra-Court appeal.

Arguments Presented

Appellant's Counsel, M/s. Prasanta Kumar Mishra, K.L. Kar and S. Mishra , argued:

* Mr. Patra had been working against a vacant sanctioned post since 1997, not on a contractual basis.

* 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. Patra was entitled to regularization as per the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 and subsequent Supreme Court judgments.

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.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning: Upholding Fairness and Equity

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 Yogesh Mahajan and Oshiar Prasad .

* 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 Umadevi (3) , particularly paragraph 53, which carves out an exception for one-time regularization of irregularly appointed (not illegally appointed) employees who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts without court intervention. The Court observed: "By the time the post... was sought to be abolished... the appellant had already served... for more than two decades... It is not in dispute his engagement was based on assessment of suitability... therefore, the appointment could not be said to be irregular or illegal." (Para 10)

The judgment extensively cited recent Supreme Court rulings like Narendra Kumar Tiwari , Jaggo Vrs. Union of India , Vinod Kumar Vrs . Union of India , and Sheo Narain Nagar , which emphasize fairness, equity, prevention of exploitation of temporary employees, and the interpretation of Umadevi to benefit long-serving staff. The Court underscored: "Concept of regularization derives its roots from the principles of equity, justice and fairness... Continuous service of the appellant against vacant sanctioned posts as ad hoc appointees and his selection through a process of selection constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and ad hoc nature of their initial appointment." (Para 8.2)

Final Directions

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.