The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OAC) No.3046 of 1998 Application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. Ajaya Kumar Sahoo --------------- …. - versus - Petitioner State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Party Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s.Amitav Tripathy, A.K. Behera & A.K. Dora, Advocate Advocates. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate. __________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 5th December, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this application seeking the following relief; “A) The respondents be directed to regularize the services of the applicant as Junior Typist from his initial date of appointment. B) The respondents are also be directed to pay the all-other service benefits attached to the post at par with his counter parts in regular establishment. C) And pass any other order/orders as would be deemed fit and prepare.” Page 1 of 13 2.
Facts
The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was initially engaged as Junior Typist in the office of the Odisha Staff Selection Commission (OSSC) as per appointment letter dated 11.12.1996. Such appointment was for a period of 44 days, which came to be extended from time to time, each time with a break of one day. The last such appointment letter was issued on 24.10.1998. The petitioner claims to have discharged his duties continuously notwithstanding the so-called break of one day. He submitted a representation on 27.10.1998 to the Chairman of OSSC for regularization of his services as Junior Typist. Since no action was taken, the petitioner approached the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 3046 (C) of 1998 seeking the relief of regularization of his service. Said O.A. has since been transferred to this Court and registered as the present writ application. By order dated 02.12.1998, the learned Tribunal while admitting the application, passed an interim order directing that the petitioner is to be allowed to continue in the post of Junior Grade Typist till 31.12.1998 provided there is necessity for manning the post, funds are Page 2 of 13 available for paying his remuneration and work is available to keep him fully engaged. The interim order was extended from time to time. Despite such order of the Tribunal, the Secretary of OSSC, vide order dated 29.09.2022 directed engagement of the petitioner as Junior Grade Typist again for 44 days. The petitioner further claims that the OSSC placed demand for grants in 2022-23 for payment of remuneration to the petitioner showing necessity of post and availability of work. Therefore, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1121 of 2022 in the present writ application seeking a direction for issuance of fresh engagement in his favour. By order dated 11.10.2022 this Court, holding that the petitioner was no longer in service on the date of passing of the interim order by the Tribunal and as the petitioner was engaged on spell basis, was not inclined to grant any interim relief. However, the interim order earlier passed by the Tribunal was reiterated. After passing of such order, by office order dated 30.09.2022, the petitioner was disengaged with effect from the said date. The petitioner again filed an interlucotory application for recalling the order dated 11.10.2022 but the Page 3 of 13 same was rejected by order dated 17.05.2023. The petitioner preferred a writ appeal being W.A. No. 2414 of 2023 against such order but the same was withdrawn. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for review being RVWPET No.89 of 2024. By order dated 03.01.2025, a coordinate Bench of this Court having found that order dated 11.10.2022 was based on an erroneous fact, was pleased to allow the application and directed the writ application to be heard afresh. Subsequently, the petitioner was permitted to amend his writ application to also challenge the order of disengagement passed on 30.09.2022. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the OSSC. It is stated that as the post of Senior Typist could not be filled up by way of appointment or deputation or transfer or being brought over from other Heads of Departments, the work was allowed to be performed by the petitioner for 44 days with break of service from time to time. The last such engagement order was issued on 23.10.1998. The petitioner was never engaged and was discontinued from time to time as per requirement of the Page 4 of 13 Commission. The petitioner never submitted any representation for regularization of his services. Even if he had, the same would not have been able to be considered as there is no sanctioned post of Junior Typist. The petitioner has no qualification or eligibility for the post of Senior Typist. The Commission has moved the Government in G.A. Department for obtaining clearance from High Power Committee (HPC) in respect of base level post only in view of the stipulation that such posts in which vacancies have occurred before 01.04.1998 are to be filled up after obtaining approval from HPC. The petitioner was posted against a vacant post of Senior Typist which is not a base level post. There is no post of Junior Typist created/available in the Commission. As such, the petitioner has no right to claim regularization. He is a daily wager engaged on 44 days basis. He was allowed to continue on the basis of order passed by the Tribunal. Since two Junior Stenographers have been appointed by the Commission by direct recruitment, the services of the petitioner were no longer required for which he was disengaged w.e.f. 30.09.2022. Page 5 of 13 4.
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute that the petitioner continued till 30.09.2022. This implies that the three conditions imposed by the Tribunal in the above order were satisfied as otherwise it would have been open to OSSC to do away with the services of the petitioner. There was no blanket order of stay of disengagement of the petitioner granted by Page 8 of 13 the Tribunal. So, it cannot be said that the engagement of the petitioner was on the strength of the interim order passed by the Tribunal. 9. The petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to letters dated 28.07.1997 and 20.12.1997 of the Commission addressed to the Government seeking permission to engage Junior Typist against the post of Senior Grade Typist in the exigencies of work. These requests do not appear to have evoked any positive response from the Government. Nonetheless, the petitioner was allowed to continue till 30.09.2022 when he was disengaged ostensibly on the ground that two newly recruited Junior Stenographers had been engaged. The petitioner obviously cannot be blamed for the inaction of the Government in this regard. 10. Thus, bereft of all administrative and procedural formalities, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has been engaged continuously for more than two decades as Junior Typist in OSSC but without payment of the commensurate salary. Interestingly, by office order dated Page 9 of 13 30.09.2022 the petitioner was engaged for 11 days as Junior Grade Typist in level-4, Cell No.1 Rs.19,900/- with usual D.A. as admissible. How such an order could be passed in the absence of sanctioned post of Junior Typist is something that had not been clarified before this Court. Be that as it may, fact remains that engagement of the petitioner for so long on adhoc basis is nothing but exploitation of an employee by the employer. 11. In the case of Jagoo (supra), the Supreme Court held as follows: they have “25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal increasingly become a needs, mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, the present case. This practice as seen undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. in Page 10 of 13 of Career • Lack Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial and Basic Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” Rights of Same view was taken in Shripal (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra) 12. In course of argument, learned counsel for the OSSC has cited administrative bottlenecks, such as non- availability of sanctioned post etc. but this Court would hold that when administrative bottlenecks are pitted against the need to do substantial justice, the latter would gain precedence. To amplify, right to livelihood is recognized as a fundamental right being included in the right to life as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is always for the employer to set right the administrative Page 11 of 13 and procedural bottlenecks. Under no circumstances, the concerned employee can be put to blame. This is a case where the Commission has extracted work from the petitioner for a long time but has failed in its duty to secure such engagement by way of regularization of his service. As a result, the petitioner’s status as an adhoc employee continues to remain as such even after all these years. Moreover, despite repeated motions by the Commission, the Government has slept over the matter. The inaction of the authorities in this regard cannot therefore, be countenanced as it serves to infringe the right to livelihood of one of its employees. 13. Thus, from the conspectus of the analysis of facts, law involved, contentions raised and discussion made, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a good case for interference by this Court. This Court further holds that the impugned order of disengagement dated 30.09.2022 cannot be sustained. The services of the petitioner deserve to be regularized. Non- availability of post cannot stand in the way for regularizing Page 12 of 13 his service, for creation of posts is within domain of the Government. 14. In the result, the writ application is allowed. Order dated 30.09.2022 issued by the OSSC in disengaging the petitioner from the said date is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue in his post. Necessary steps to create the post of Junior Grade Typist from the date of initial engagement of the petitioner shall be taken without any further delay. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be regularized in the post so created though he shall not be entitled to any financial benefits. His services shall be reckoned notionally for granting him all other service benefits. The whole exercise should be completed within three months from today. .……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 5th December, 2025/‘A.K. Rana, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 06-Dec-2025 13:00:16 Page 13 of 13
Arguments
Heard Mr. Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for OSSC. 5. Mr. Tripathy would argue that the petitioner has admittedly served the establishment for more than 25 years continuously, which proves that there is work available in the establishment. Even if he was engaged against regular post of Senior Typist, he cannot be blamed for non-creation of a base level post. The OSSC moved the Government on several occasions for creation of a base level post of Junior Typist but the Government did not take any action whatsoever. Therefore, after being engaged for so long, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the inaction of the Government. In support of his submissions, Mr. Tripathy has relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court. 1. Jaggo v. Union of India1 2. Shripal v. Nagar Nigam2 3. Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P.3 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 3 2025 INSC 998 Page 6 of 13 6. Mr. Pattnaik, on the other hand, would submit that while it is true that the petitioner was engaged way back on 11.12.1996 but the same was a sort of stop gap arrangement to meet the exigency of work arising out of vacancy in the post of Senior Typist. Moreover, the petitioner was appointed on need basis for spells of 44 days only. Most importantly, the petitioner was allowed to discharge work in the establishment on the strength of interim order passed by the Tribunal. Mr. Pattnaik also fairly submits that the OSSC requested the Government for creation of base level post or for sponsoring a Typist to be appointed as Junior Typist against the post of Senior Grade Typist but in the absence of any order being passed by the Government and two other Junior Stenographers having been appointed on regular basis by direct recruitment, there was no further necessity of engagement of the petitioner, for which he was rightly disengaged. 7. From the facts placed and the contentions advanced by the parties, it appears an admitted fact that the petitioner was engaged as Junior Grade Typist way back on 11.12.1996. Such engagement was for 44 days Page 7 of 13 only. It is common ground that such engagement was continued from time to time though with break of one day between two spells of engagement. The Supreme Court as well as the High Courts of the country have consistently frowned upon this practice of engaging persons with artificial breaks apparently to disown responsibility towards them. This Court would therefore not be impressed by the argument that the petitioner’s engagement was not continuous but with break. On 02.12.1998, the Tribunal passed the following interim order. “As regards the interim prayer if there is necessity for manning the post, funds are available for paying his remuneration and work is available to keep him fully engaged, then the applicant be allowed to continue in the post of Jr. Gr. Typist till 31.12.1998. Let this O.A. be listed before that date and on the next date either counter be filed or submissions made as to why interim order shall not continue further.” 8.