State of Karnatak v. M.L. Keshari
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15881 OF 2022 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ……………… Manoranjan Moharana Petitioner …. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Ojha, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.P. Das, Addl.Standing Counsel PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing:14.10.2025 and Date of Judgment:14.10.2025 -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 1. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 28-Oct-2025 19:09:25 // 2 // 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularisation vide the impugned order dt.27.05.2022 so issued under Annexure-8 by Opp. Party No.2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a DLR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 on 01.08.1991 and since that date, Petitioner is continuing as such without any break in engagement and without protection of any interim order passed by any Court of law.
Legal Reasoning
iv. Deceased appellants: the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement. v. Compliance Principal affidavit: Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary the U.P. Education Services Selection of competent Commission or authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement. 20. We have these directions framed comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been rolling met with “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear verifiable timelines, duties, compliance .As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore technicalities, fresh fixed and Page 10 of 13 // 11 // it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. transparency and 5. Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party Nos.1,2 & 4. While it is not disputed that Petitioner continued as a DLR w.e.f 01.08.1991 and as a temporary status employee w.e.f 03.10.2012, but it is contended that since there is no available vacant sanctioned post, Petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected. It is also contended that since Petitioner was never engaged by facing due recruitment process and his engagement is not against any sanctioned post, he is not covered by the decision in the case of Uma Devi & M.L Keshari. It is also contended that Petitioner’s claim is not covered as per the resolution issued by the Finance Deptt. on 04.09.2012 under Annexure-3. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected. Page 11 of 13 // 12 // 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that Petitioner was engaged as a DLR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 w.e.f 01.08.1991 and while continuing as such he was granted temporary status w.e.f 03.10.2012 in terms of Annexure-3. There is no material available on record that Petitioner is not continuing w.e.f 01.08.1991 as a DLR and as a temporary employee w.e.f 03.10.2012 without any break in engagement. It is also not disputed that Petitioner is protected by any interim order passed by any Court of law with regard to his continuance. 6.1. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Uma Devi, M.L. Keshari and Nihal Singh and the recent decisions in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh as cited supra, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularisation and the ground on which the claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dt.27.05.2022 under Annexure-8 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.2. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned rejection dt.27.05.2022 under Annexure-8, directs Opp. Party No.2 to take appropriate step to regularise the services of the Petitioner with passing of an appropriate order in that regard within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order and make him Page 12 of 13 // 13 // eligible to get the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.
Arguments
4.1 It is contended that since Petitioner continued as a DLR w.e.f 01.08.1991, in view of the Finance Deptt. Resolution issued on 15.05.1997 under Annexure-2, Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of regularisation with due absorption in the post in question. 4.2. It is also contended that basing on the resolution issued by the Finance Department on dt.04.09.2012 under Annexure-3, Petitioner though was extended with the benefit of temporary status vide order dt.03.10.2012 under Annexure-6, but Petitioner was never regularised. 4.3. On the face of such continuance without any break w.e.f 01.08.1991 and as a temporary employee w.e.f 03.10.2012, Petitioner when was not regularised , he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.36018 of Page 2 of 13 // 3 // 2021. This Court vide order dt.01.12.2021 when directed Opp. Party No.2 to consider the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC-1, State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015 (8) SCC 265 and Nihal Singh Vrs. State of Punjab, 2013 (14) SCC 65 and so also the resolution of the Finance Deptt. dt.04.09.2012, but without proper appreciation of the decisions of the Apex Court as cited supra, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dt.27.05.2022 under Annexure-8. 4.4. It is contended that since petitioner without any break continued as a DLR w.e.f 01.08.1991 and as a temporary status employee w.e.f 03.10.2012, which is not disputed, the ground on which the Petitioner’s claim was rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that in view of the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Others, 2024 INSC 1034, Shripal & Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144 and Dharam Singh & Others VS. State of U.P. & Another, 2025 Livelaw (SC) 818 Petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of regularisation with quashing of the impugned rejection. 4.5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo in Par-22 to 25 and 27 held as follows:- Page 3 of 13 // 4 // led to an increase “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers’ rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental in the gig economy but also sets a trends observed concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. institutions, 23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO’s Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long- term unemployment. from sector, the private 24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent the illustrating example consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than label assigned to the worker, should determine the employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary’s role in rectifying such Page 4 of 13 // 5 // misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. in government institutions, often 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a 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, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career 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 of Basic Rights and 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 Page 5 of 13 // 6 // social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. xxxx in cases of xxxxx xxxx xxxx 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization’s functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 4.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal in Para- 14, 15, 17 & 18(IV)has held as follows:- “14. ...... More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Indian 15. ……. law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. labour xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the 17. legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 18.(IV) The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent Page 6 of 13 // 7 // impose educational or procedural posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.” 4.7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh in Paragraph-13,14,15 & 17,18,19 & 20 held as follows: to the and sidestep the work 13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate fair precariousness engagement practices where is inherently perennial. The Commission’s further contention that the appellants are not “full- time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State’s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. 14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the 25.11.2003. subsequent However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh later decision during pendency, and rejection was placed on the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the in refusing legality of the State’s stance upon 1999 sanction, whether record by decision dated the or in Page 7 of 13 // 8 // reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy” while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained. the 15. Therefore, foregoing in view of observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State’s refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003,in so far as they concern the Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed. 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. long-term extraction of regular Page 8 of 13 // 9 // the and issue creation Regularization the appellants, If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why treated similarly placed workers were differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is an institutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we following directions: i. of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall the posts supernumerary create (Driver or corresponding cadres, Class-III equivalent) Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last- drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay- level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization preconditions. caveats and or in Page 9 of 13 // 10 // /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement. (ii), and In The the prevalent
Decision
6.3. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 14th October, 2025/sangita Page 13 of 13