The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.19560 of 2025 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ……………… Binay Prasad Ram …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : M/s. P.K. Mohapatra & S.C. For Opp. Parties: Sahoo, Advocate : M/s. M.R. Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate (for O.P. Nos.1 to 3) M/s. Ms. P.P. Barik, Adv. (for O.P. No.4) PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Date of Hearing: 15.09.2025 and Date of Judgment: 15.09.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: // 2 // Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
Legal Reasoning
contended that since there is no dispute that Petitioner is continuing as a DLR w.e.f 07.07.1994, in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and Others, Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, and Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & Another, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization requires a fresh consideration. 3.2. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo in Par- 22 to 25 and 27 held as follows:- “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 in precarious employment has arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour increase to an led Page 3 of 13 // 4 // institutions, 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. 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 the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary’s role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, face particularly multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address institutions, often in government Page 4 of 13 // 5 // short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become long-term obligations owed to a mechanism to evade 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 social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. xxxx in cases of xxxxx xxxx xxxx Page 5 of 13 // 6 // 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.” 3.3. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal in Par- 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 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 or procedural educational impose Page 6 of 13 // 7 // vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary longtime administrative processes to ensure these employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.” 3.4. 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 sanction, whether upon 1999 in 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 record by decision dated the or Page 7 of 13 // 8 // 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. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns long-term extraction of regular Page 8 of 13 // 9 // the and issue creation Regularization the appellants, 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 the case may be. /retirement/death, as Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in preconditions. caveats and or in Page 9 of 13 // 10 // 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 iv. Deceased appellants: the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who legal has died during pendency, his/her 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 duties, verifiable timelines, compliance .As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore 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 technicalities, fresh fixed and Page 10 of 13 // 11 // 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 3.5. It is also contended that Junior to the Petitioner has already got the benefit of regularization vide order dt.02.01.2023 under Annexure-8. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim. 4. Even though this Court vide order dt.28.07.2025 and 12.08.2025 directed the State Counsel to obtain instruction, but no instruction is forthcoming. However, it is contended that if this Court will remit the matter for fresh consideration, learned State Counsel has got no serious objection. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Khurda Municipality does not dispute the continuance of the Petitioner as a DLR w.e.f 07.07.1994 to till date. Page 11 of 13 // 12 // 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made this Court finds that Petitioner on being allowed to continue as a DLR w.e.f 07.07.1994 when was not regularized, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.10941 of 2021. This Court vide order dt.24.03.2021 though directed Opp. party No.1 to take a decision in the light of the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC-1 and in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, but the same was rejected vide the impugned order dt.14.09.2021 under Annexure-6 on the ground that the Petitioner has been engaged after the cut-off date. 5.1. Placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharm Singh as cited supra, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which claim of the Petitioner
Arguments
(i) direct the Opp. Parties to regularize the service of the Petitioner in the existing vacant post of Jr. Asst., as has been given to his Junior, Surendranath Sahoo in the light of the Judgment at Para-53 in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vrs. Umadevi 2006(4) SCC 1 and the State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Keshari, AIR 2010 SC 2587, Amarkanta Rai Vs. State of Bihar (2015)8 SCC 265 in Joggo Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826,in Shripal & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad, decided on 31.01.2025 in Civil Appeal No.8158- 8179 of 2024, as has been given to similarly situated persons vide Annexure-8 and thereby the Order, dtd. 14.09.2021 vide quash Annexure-6, and accordingly grant all the consequential service and financial benefits to the Petitioner for the interest of justice; (ii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty and, ever pray. 3. It is contended that even though Petitioner is continuing as a DLR in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 since 07.07.1994, but when he was not regularized, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.10948 of 2021. This Court vide order dt.24.03.2021 disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction on Opp. Party No.1 to consider the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the decision in the case of Uma Devi as well as M.L Kesari. However, Page 2 of 13 // 3 // without proper appreciation of the direction and the decisions referred above, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide order dt.14.09.2021 under Annexure-6 inter alia holding that the said decisions are not applicable and Petitioner has been engaged as a DLR on 07.07.1994 which is after the cut-off date i.e. 12.04.1994. 3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
Decision
was rejected vide the impugned order is not sustainable. 5.2. Therefore, this Court while quashing the order dt.14.09.2021 under Annexure-6 directs Opp. party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim in the light of Page 12 of 13 // 13 // the decision in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh. Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner. 5.3. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 15th September, 2025/sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 08-Oct-2025 12:32:54 Page 13 of 13