Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 *** 1. Nabakishore Nayak Aged about 51 years Son of Late Utsav Nayak At: Narada, P.O.: Turintita P.S.: Balipatna District: Khordha. 2. Gangadhar Mandal Aged about 42 years Son of Harihar Mandal At: Sidhamahabirpatna Purusottam Nagar P.S.: Kumbharpada District: Puri. 3. Krushna Bhoi Aged about 42 years Son of Jaya Bhoi At: Narendra Kona Subhadra Lane P.S.: Kumbharpada District: Puri. 4. Purna Chandra Nayak Aged about 49 years Son of Bandhu Nayak W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 1 of 87 At/P.O.: Mahapur, P.S.: Gop District: Puri. 5. Kailash Chandra Sethi Aged about 48 years Son of Bishnu Sethi At: Kumutisahi P.O./P.S.: Puri District: Puri 6. Ramakanta Das Aged about 40 years Son of Late Shyamsundar Das At/P.O./P.S.: Rajnagar District: Kendrapara. 7. Rabinarayan Samal Aged about 40 years Son of Late Bichei Samal At: Gurula, P.O.: Dudurkote P.S.: Balimi District: Dhenkanal. … Petitioners -VERSUS- 1. State of Odisha Represented though Commissioner-cum-Secretary Government of Odisha Housing and Urban Development Department Secretariat Building Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha. 2. Commissioner-cum-Secretary Government of Odisha Finance Department W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 2 of 87 Secretariat Building Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha. 3. Director, Municipal Administration Odisha, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. 4. Executive Officer, Puri Municipality At/P.O./P.S./District: Puri. … Opposite parties Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioners : Mr. Hrudananda Mohapatra, Asima Samantaray, M.R. Behera, Advocates For the Opposite party Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. Jayanta Kumar Bal, Additional Government Advocate along with Santosh Kumar Brahma, Additional Standing Counsel For the Opposite party No.4 : Mr. Pradipta Mohanty Senior Advocate assisted by M/s. Pranoy Mohanty, Sanjib Kumar Sahu and Prasannajit Pani, Advocates P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 21.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 24.03.2025 J UDGMENT W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 3 of 87 Questioning the propriety of instruction of Government of Odisha in Housing and Urban Development Department vide Letter No.14449/HUD, dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure-13) and legality of Office Order No.3239, dated 13.05.2011 (Annexure-14) whereby Office Order No.3162, 3165, 3168 and 3171, dated 11.05.2011 were kept in abeyance as well as Office Order No.4113, dated 13.06.2011 of the Puri Municipality (Annexure-15) cancelling Office Order Nos.3162, 3165, 3168 and 3171, dated 11.05.2011 by virtue which the services of the petitioners were regularised, the instant writ petition has been filed to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer(s): “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: (i) (ii) quash the Government Order dated 13.06.2011 under Annexure-13 by concurrently holding the illegal and not sustainable or same as bad, maintainable in the eye of law; quash the Order passed by Puri Municipality vide Order No.3239, dated 13.05.2011 and Order No.4113, dated 13.06.2011 under Annaxures-14 and 15 respectively; W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 4 of 87 (iii) pass such other order (s)/direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice; And for which act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.” Facts: 2. Facts, as adumbrated by the writ petitioners, reveal that the petitioners, temporary staff of Puri Municipality, having worked for more than 10 years in Class-IV posts against sanctioned post, claimed to be entitled to the benefit of Scheme for absorption of NMR/DLR/Job Contract worker under regular establishment in consonance with the Finance Department Resolution No.22764—WFI-24/97/F., dated 15.05.1997. 2.1. Said Resolution dated 15.05.1997 reads thus: “No. 22764—WFI-24/97-F. Government of Orissa Finance Department Resolution Bhubaneswar, dated The 15th May 1997 Subject: Scheme for absorption of N.M.R/D.L.R./Job Contract Workers under Regular Establishment. It has been brought to the notice of Finance the different Departments of Department by Government that directives from Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Court and Orissa Administrative Tribunal have been received for preparation of a W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 5 of 87 scheme to absorb the above categories of workers under regular establishment. As per the above directives, Government have been pleased to formulate the fallowing norms and the N.M.R./D.L.R./Job Contract conditions Workers. for 1. 2. 3. 4. list shall be Separate Gradation/Seniority prepared by the Appointing Authority for each category of workers determining the length of engagement of a particular person. The workers should have worked under the administrative control of the Department concerned directly for a minimum period 10 years. The engagement of 240 days in a year shall be construed as a complete year of engagement for this purpose. The workers should have been engaged prior to 12.04.1993, i.e., prior to promulgation of ban on engagement of N.M.R./D.L.R./Job Contract Workers, etc. vide Finance Department Circular No.17815—WF-II-180/92/F., dated the 12th April 1993. They should have the minimum educational/ Technical qualification prescribed for the post against which they would be absorbed. They should be within the age limit prescribed for 1st appointment to Government service after deduction of the number of years they have worked under the Department concerned: W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 6 of 87 Provided that the age limit can be further relaxed with the approval of Appointing Authority. 5. Absorption against the post for which regular recruitment rules have been framed will be made in relaxation of the relevant provisions by the competent authority. 6. reserved Vacancies for S.C./S.T./O.B.C./ Women Candidate/Physically Handicapped, etc. will be filled up according to reservation Rules issued by Government from time to time. 7. Absorption in Class-III & IV posts against the vacant posts shall be made keeping in view the in Finance austerity measures Department O. M. No.50791-F., dated the 10th December, 1996 read with O. M. No. 4986, dated the 7th February 1997. issued
Legal Reasoning
8. While filling up the regular vacant pasts preference shall be given to work-charged employees first. Where no suitable work- charged employees are available to man the post preference shall be given in the following order, i.e., N.M.R., D.L.R., Job Contract Workers and others. 9. On absorption in a regular establishment the worker shall draw the minimum of the time scale attached the post and other allowances as admissible under Rules from time to time. to W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 7 of 87 10. The date of regularisation shall be reckoned as the 1st appointment to the service for pension and other service benefits. 11. The authority competent who shall issue the order of regularisation shall certify that the person(s) who are being regularised in this order were engaged as prior to 12th April, 1993, i.e., prior to promulgation of ban issued by Finance Department and this has been agreed to by the Financial Adviser of the Department. 12. This shall
Decision
order supersede the Orders/Resolutions/Notifications, etc. issued by various Departments of Government for regularisation of N.M.R./D.L.R./Job Contract and other such category of workers. all Copy of all regularisation order issued in this connection shall be forwarded simultaneously to the Administrative Department concerned and Finance Department. By order of the Governor P.K. Mishra Principal Secretary to Government” 2.2. Consequent upon such Resolution, a Letter No.16880— LFS (APL) 39/98 (Pt.)/HUD, dated 15.05.1999 came to be issued by the Director of Municipal Administration addressed to the Executive Officer of all the Municipalities contemplating regularisation of temporary employees who completed 10 years in service with the eligibility as envisaged in said Resolution. W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 8 of 87 2.3. The Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha in Housing and Urban Development Department vide Letter No.36051—MIS-129/2000/HUD, dated 15.12.2000 addressing “All Urban Local Bodies” with regard to “Regularisation of DLR/NMRs in Urban Local Bodies” directed as follows: “I am directed to invite a reference to the above subject and to say that DLR/NMRs engaged after 19.05.1997 may be disengaged forthwith, if not yet done. Further, the DLRs/NMRs engaged before 19.05.1997 may continue with consolidated pay in accordance with this Department Circular No.16330/HUD, dated 15.05.1999 and the regularisation of their services in non-LFS cadre may be considered by the respective councils befitting to their qualification in respective posts as well as on completion of 10 years service as DLRs/NMRs against sanctioned posts only. Deviation, if any, will seriously be viewed.” 2.4. The Housing and Urban Development Department contemplated to hold High-Level Meeting to solve problems of Municipalities, Development Authorities and Medical Colleges vide Letter dated Memo No.19677/Gen- M&C (Oths)— 10/03 (Pt.-I)/HUD, dated 24.04.2003, pursuant to which in the General Body Meeting of the Puri Municipal Council held on 13.09.2010 it was inter alia resolved to regularise the services of temporary employees having completed 10 years of service regard W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 9 of 87 being had to vacancies in sanctioned posts that would arise within four years thence. 2.5. A list of temporary staff (DLR) according to their seniority was published by the Office of the Puri Municipality vide Notice No.7246, dated 25.11.2010. The Puri Municipal Council in its Meeting held on 07.04.2011 resolved to regularise temporary employees in service who have completed 10 years of service based on their seniority with reference to the Housing and Urban Development Department Letter No.36081, dated 15.12.2000 against vacant sanctioned posts. 2.6. Accordingly pursuant to such Resolution dated 13.09.2010 of Puri Municipal Council the services of temporary staff (Class-IV) including the petitioners have been regularised vide Office Order No.3171, dated 11.05.2011 read with Corrigendum No.3236, dated 13.05.2011 against the vacant posts. 2.7. Vide Letter dated 13.06.2011 issued by the Housing and Urban Development Department, the Executive Officer of the Puri Municipality is directed as follows: “Government of Odisha Housing and Urban Development Department No.14449/MIS-42/2011 dated 13.06.2011 W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 10 of 87 From Smt. Suryamani Behera Deputy Secretary to Government To The Executive Officer Puri Municipality Sub.: Unauthorised regularisation of 16 temporary employees by Puri Municipality. Sir, I am directed to invite a reference to your Office Order No.3168, dated 11.05.2011 on the subject cited above and instruct you to please cancel the unauthorised temporary employees of Puri Municipality made in the above order forthwith under intimation to this Department. regularisation of 16 This may please be treated as most urgent. Yours faithfully Sd/- 13.06.2011 Deputy Secretary to Government” 2.8. The Puri Municipality issued following Office Orders: “Office of the Puri Municipality, Puri No.3239 (Office Order) dated 13.05.2011 Office Order No.3162, 3165, 3168 and 3171, dated 11.05.2011 issued by this Office for regularisation of temporary staff in different scale of pay are hereby kept in abeyance until clearance from Government in Housing and Urban Development Department is received in this regard. W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 11 of 87 Executive Officer Puri Municipality Puri” *** *** *** “Office of the Puri Municipality, Puri No.4113 (Office Order) dated 13.06.2011 Office Order No.3162, 3165, 3168 and 3171, dated 11.05.2011 issued by this Office for regularisation of temporary staff in different posts and scale of pay and which was kept in abeyance vide Office Order No.3239, dated 13.05.2011 are hereby cancelled as Letter per No.14449/HUD, dated 13.06.2011. of Government instruction in Executive Officer Puri Municipality Puri” 2.9. The petitioner is before this Court in the instant writ petition challenging the propriety of instruction of Government in Letter No.14449/HUD, dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure-13) and legality of Office Order No.3239, dated 13.05.2011 (Annexure-14) whereby Office Order Nos.3162, 3165, 3168 and 3171, dated 11.05.2011 were kept in abeyance as well as Office Order No.4113, dated 13.06.2011 of the Puri Municipality (Annexure-15) cancelling Office Order Nos.3162, 3165, 3168 and 3171, dated 11.05.2011 by virtue which the services of the petitioners were regularised. W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 12 of 87 Hearing: 3. This Court by Order dated 10.08.2011 issued notice to the opposite parties and granted stay of operation of Orders in Annexures-13, 14 and 15. 3.1. The Puri Municipality entered appearance by executing Vakalatnama in favour of Sri Pradipta Mohanty, learned Advocate through the Executive Officer on 21.10.2011. 3.2. Though the matter was listed on 20.07.2022, 27.07.2022, 29.08.2022, 08.01.2025 and 06.03.2025 along with W.P.(C) No.20713 of 2011 (Dhirendra Ku. Das and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Others) for the opposite parties to file response, no counter affidavit is forthcoming. 3.3. The matter thereafter stood adjourned to 21.03.2025 for hearing on admission. On the date of hearing, i.e., 21.03.2025 also no counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. It is unfortunate to note that even after lapse of considerable period, there is no response from either the State Government or the Puri Municipality. 3.4. Since the writ petition has been pending adjudication since 2011 and the opposite parties have not paid any heed to file any response despite adjournments, this Court was left with no option but to proceed with the case on merit. W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 13 of 87 3.5. It is not the case of the opposite parties that they had been under disability nor can the State instrumentalities be said to be under some disability. No explanation has ever been furnished as to why the counter affidavit had not been filed. The opposite parties cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own mistake. A person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum, particularly so before a Writ Court. The legal maxim ‘allegans suam turpetudinem non est audiendus’ fits to the context. If the opposite parties have committed a wrong by not filing the counter-affidavit, they cannot be permitted to take the benefit of their own wrong. (Vide G.S. Lamba Vrs. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1019; Narender Chadha Vrs. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 638; Jose Vrs. Alice, (1996) 6 SCC 342; T. Srinivasan Vrs. Mrs. T. Varalakshmi, (1998) 3 SCC 112). 3.6. In view of the above, if the counter affidavit is not filed, and no explanation is proffered by the opposite parties, for such lackadaisical attitude this Court has justified reason to decide the case on the basis of the averments in the writ petition, which has been pending since 2011. 3.7. This Court expressed the following view in Pratap Kumar Jena Vrs. Government of Odisha, 2016 SCC OnLine Ori 830: W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 14 of 87 “25. In Ram Bhual Vrs. Ambika Singh, JT (2005) 12 SC 49 = (2005) 12 SCC 121, the apex Court held that where specific pleadings in election petition has not been denied by the opposite party in his written statement while answering the pleadings, applying the doctrine of non-traverse, it can be said that on the pleadings, the case of the election petitioner on this aspect is established. 26. In Pyrites Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd. Vrs. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 Pat 57, the High Court of Patna held as follows: ‘One cannot be allowed to frustrate the process of the Court by adopting the easy option of non- appearing despite valid service of notice. On the basis of doctrine ‘non-traverse’ i.e. acceptance by non-denial, it was held that the claim of the petitioner the respondents.’ is not denied but accepted by 27. Applying the very principle of non-traverse to the present context, since the opposite parties have not filed the counter affidavit in the present case to controvert the contention raised in the writ application, the facts which have been pleaded by the petitioner are deemed to be admitted. Therefore, any argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties cannot sustain in absence of any pleadings thereof.” 3.8. Bearing in mind above exposition of law, this Court heard Sri Hrudananda Mohapatra, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Jayant Kumar Bal, learned W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 15 of 87 Additional Government Advocate and Sri Santosh Kumar Brahma, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pranoy Mohanty, learned Advocate assisting Sri Pradipta Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.4-Puri Municipality. 3.9. On conclusion of hearing, the matter stood reserved for preparation and pronouncement of judgment. Rival contentions and submissions: 4. Reiterating the facts as narrated in the writ petition, Sri Hrudananda Mohapatra, learned Advocate submitted that time and again the Puri Municipality took decision to regularise the petitioners considering length of service and seniority in consonance with the norms specified in Finance Department Resolution dated 15.05.1997 and finally regularised the service of temporary staff working in Class-IV category by Office Order dated 11.05.2011 against vacant posts. Such decision or action of the Puri Municipality could not have been branded as “unauthorised regularisation” by the Government of Odisha in Housing and Urban Development Department. 4.1. Laying stress on the Notice dated 25.11.2010 (Annexure- 10), Sri Hrudananda Mohapatra, learned Advocate drew attention of this Court to the following fact: Name Designation Date of engagement W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 16 of 87 Nabakishore Nayak Gangadhar Mandal Krushna Ch. Bhoi Purna Chandra Nayak Kailash Chandra Sethi Ramakanta Das Rabinarayan Samal Peon Helper now Peon Hammerman Helper Light Helper Peon Helper 08.02.1993 24.04.1995 02.09.1993 03.04.1995 31.05.1995 24.09.1993 21.10.1993 4.2. He would, thus, urge that for a long period the Puri Municipality has been exploiting the service of the petitioners which would entail them to claim for regularisation in service and rightly so the Puri Municipality resolved vide Council Resolution No.16 dated 13.09.2010 to regularise the service of the petitioners. Therefore, the Office Order dated 11.05.2011 issued in favour of the petitioners by regularising their services does not warrant intervention of this Court. 4.3. Sri Hrudananda Mohapatra, learned Advocate laid strong emphasis that having put in service for more than a decade since their engagement in 1993/1995, when their cases were considered for regularisation and their services, in fact, were regularised against vacant post vide Office Order dated 11.05.2011, cancelling the same without assigning any reason, much less cogent reason, would tantamount to arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power. Therefore, he prayed for quashing of the instruction of the Housing and Urban Development Department and the consequential orders passed by the Puri Municipality in obedience to such instruction of the Government of Odisha. W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 17 of 87 5. Sri Jayant Kumar Bal, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri Santosh Kumar Brahma, learned Additional Standing Counsel would submit that though instructions were sought for since long, no response is received from the opposite party Nos.1 to 3. However, it is submitted that the impugned Letter dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure-13) issued by the Housing and Urban Development Department, though does not disclose reason, instructions were issued to the Puri Municipality to cancel the Office Orders whereby regularisation of services of the petitioners were accorded inasmuch as such action for regularisation is “unauthorised”. 6. Sri Pranoy Mohanty, learned Advocate assisting Sri Pradipta Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate supporting the Resolutions of the Puri Municipality as enclosed to the writ petition would submit that the action under Annexures-14 and 15 have been taken by cancelling the regularisation in service vide Office Order dated 11.05.2011 in consonance with the instruction contained in Letter dated 13.06.2011 of the Housing and Urban Development Department. Analysis and discussion: 7. By virtue of Finance Department Resolution dated 15.05.1997, the Puri Municipality resolved to regularise the services of those temporary staff (DLR), who were W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 18 of 87 engaged for 240 days in a year coupled with the condition that they had completed 10 years of service. Consequent upon such resolution, in subsequent meetings it was resolved to regularise the service of petitioners in order of seniority against vacant posts having regard to the Housing and Urban Development Department Letter No.36051, dated 15.12.2000. Accordingly, Office Order dated 11.05.2011 was issued by the Office of Puri Municipality wherein the services of the petitioners, Class-IV employees, were “regularised” “against the vacant posts”. 7.1. Sri Hrudananda Mohapatra, learned Advocate referred to paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Vinod Kumar and others Vrs. Union of India and others, reported in (2024) 1 S.C.R. 1230 = (2024) 9 SCC 327, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as follows: “5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants the capacities of regular employees, in performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through that of regular a process recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature that mirrors W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 19 of 87 6. initial engagement. Moreover, of their the appellants’ promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status. the judgment The application of in State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process interviews, which tests and involving written distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1. 7. The judgment in State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 also distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as illegally W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 20 of 87 conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Para 53 of State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 is reproduced hereunder: ‘53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in State of Mysore Vrs. S.V. Narayanappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 23, R.N. Nanjundappa Vrs. T. Thimmiah, (1972) 1 SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan Vrs. State of Karnataka, (1979) 4 SCC 507 and referred to in para 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 the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits 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 their Governments to should instrumentalities regularise 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 the courts or of that tribunals and should regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six further ensure steps State take and the in W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 21 of 87 months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.’ 8. In the light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants’ arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognise the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, intent behind fairness, and employment regulations.” the 7.2. It is apt to refer to the anxious consideration shown by the Madras High Court in N. Karunanidhi Vrs. Union of India, W.P. No. 12887 of 2016, vide Judgment dated 22.04.2022 made with respect to exploitation of service. The following benevolent observation has been made by said Court in favour of employees, whose services have been utilized by the Government for a long time: “18. If for the Courts cannot give direction their regularisation of service, in the constrained legal scenario what other remedies that are available to these unfortunate employees, who have been engaged in service for public purpose, without having any definite future to hold on? These Page 22 of 87 W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 petitioners cannot be kept on the tenterhooks of their employment for years together, by brushing aside and discarding their concerned yearning future, with unresponsive indifference. for a definite that stand despite 19. A welfare State grounded on constitutional values, cannot come up with apathetic and continued callous employment of these petitioners for years together, no semblance of right is available to them. Such stand by the State is opposed to constitutional values as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Courts of course have held that equal opportunity must be provided in public employment and entry through back door should be discountenanced. When Article 21, being violated by the State, action towards its servants, the consideration of the Government must primarily be focussed on alleviating legitimate grievances of its employees. Even assuming that the recruitment of in these writ petitioners had not been consonance with the procedure for appointment in Government services, the fact remained that these persons have been consciously appointed by the Government for implementing public projects and the work has been extracted from them continuously for several years. It is therefore, not open to the Government after a period of time to turn around and contend that these writ petitioners have no right at all to seek any kind of guarantee for their future. fully 20. In the opinion of this Court, continued employment for several years, even on a projects meant to serve the State as a whole, W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 23 of 87 of a scheme/towards certain rights would definitely accrue to them, atleast to the extent of making a claim for their formulation absorption. This Court is quite conscious of the fact that the Government has been benevolent and had come up with several schemes in the past and directed regularisation of services of thousands of employees over a period of time. Such benevolence ought to permeate to the lowest levels to take within its sweep the desperate cry of the petitioners as well. As in the sublime words of the father of nation, Mahatma Gandhi, ‘A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members’. Merely because these writ petitioners have been employed in the projects, the policy makers may not shut their mind and close their eyes to their precarious plight having to serve public purpose but left in the lurch and unprotected, at the end of the day.” 7.3. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr. Prasana Kumar Mishra Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.11148 of 2005, reported at 2016 (I) ILR-CUT 373, made the following observation: “7. In Binan Kumar Mohanty Vrs. Water and Land Management Institute (WALMI), 2015 (I) OLR 347 referring to Kapila Hingorani Vrs. State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1 the apex Court held that the Government companies/public sector undertakings being ‘States’ would be constitutionally liable to respect life and liberty of all persons in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if the petitioner has rendered service for around 20 years, keeping in view the ratio decided in Kopila W.P.(C) No.20715 of 2011 Page 24 of 87 8. Hingorani (supra), this Court issues direction to the opposite parties to mitigate the hardship of the employees. Financial stringency is no ground for not issuing requisite directions when there is violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner. Allowing a person to continue for a quite long period of 20 years of service and exploiting him on the pretext of financial crunch in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is sheer arbitrariness of the authority which is highly condemnable. offices. In Narendra Kumar Ratha and Others Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, 2015 (I) OLR 197, this Court has taken into consideration the object of Article 16 of the Constitution of India to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in or The word public appointment’ initial cover not merely appointment, but also other attributes like salary, increments, revision of pay, promotion, gratuity, leave pension and age of superannuation etc. Appointment to any post under the State can only be made the provisions and procedure envisaged under the law and guidelines governing the field. in accordance with ‘employment the 9. In Prabodh Verma and Others Vrs. State of U.P. and Others, (1984) 4 SCC 251, the apex Court held that Article 16 is an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14, with special reference to the opportunity for appointment and employment under the Government.