Ajay Kumar Sahoo & Ors. v. State of Odisha

15.05.2026

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners with a direction to the opposite party to forthwith issue orders of regularization of establishment with effect from 17th September, 2013 in the their services as Drivers scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1500/- with usual allowances admissible as per G.A. Department Resolution dated 17th September, 2013 in the same manner as other similarly situated contractual Drivers have been allowed in terms of Annexure-4 series and the decisions of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vrs. Umadevi (3) & others (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L. Kesari & others (2010) 9 SCC 247 besides the order in W.P.(C) No.20629 of 2020.

The petitioners were allowed to continue as DLR Drivers in Finance Department until 28th February, 2006 and thereafter, they were posted as Direct Contractual Drivers w.e.f. 1st March, 2006 to 31st August, 2006 vide office order dated 9th March, 2006 of the Finance Department and after 31st August, 2006, they continued in their posts with enhanced consolidated remuneration and thereafter, their further engagement was extended on annual contract basis. the continuance of During the G.A. Department Resolution dated 17th September, 2013 arrived, their services, is pleaded that since all of them fulfilled conditions/criteria stipulated therein, upon completion of six years of contractual service, are entitled to regular appointment with only formal orders issued in their favour. It is claimed that in view of the Resolution (supra), in various departments of the Government, contractual employees including the Drivers and their services have been regularized after completion of six years of continuous service. The claim is that the petitioners are similarly situated and hence, are to be extended parity. Referring to the regularization of service of contractual employees pursuant to the decision in O.A. No.2172 (C) of 2015 and batch of cases decided on 17th May, 2017 upheld in W.P.(C) No.6661 of 2018 and finally by the Apex Court on 6th August, 2018 and in compliance thereof, the Data Entry Operators (DEOs) the Commercial Tax Organization have been regularized with retrospective effect, but the petitioners were denied and for that they filed O.A. No.528 of 2016, 530 of 2016 and 531 of 2016, which were disposed of with a direction to consider their representation and to take a decision keeping in view the guidelines laid down in Umadevi (3) (supra), but once again, O.A. Nos.4364(C), 4365 (C) & 4368 (C) of 2016 had to be filed and thereafter, upon abolition of the Tribunal and transfer of the O.As to this Court, all are pending disposal. In the meantime, the present writ petition was filed demanding regularization with the claim that the petitioners have put more than 10 years of satisfactory services having an unblemished career continued without judicial intervention and orders, hence, are eligible in their respective posts Resolution dated 17th September, 2013. terms of the G.A. Department

Perused the pleadings on record.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

The contention is that the petitioners‟ services are to be regularized as per the G.A. Department Resolution dated 17th September, 2013. It is contended that in Dharam Singh & others Vrs. State of U.P. & another 2025 INSC 998, the Apex Court following its judgments in Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Shripal and another Vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 read with Umadevi (3) (supra) issued direction to ensure fairness in public employment. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners cited a decision dated 12th April, 2023 of this Court in W.A. No.777 of 2021 upholding the judgment in W.P.(C) No.19951 of 2020 (Patitapaban Dutta Dash & others Vrs. State of Odisha & others) following which regularization of DEOs working in different Tehsils of the State was directed and confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.17482 of 2023 (State of Odisha & another Vrs. Bidyadhar Biswal & others). Similarly, in W.P.(C) No.11745 of 2022 (Tusar Ranjan Satapathy Vrs. State of Odisha & others) disposed of 30th July, 2025, this Court followed the decision in Jaggo (supra) and also Shripal (supra) read with Umadevi (3) (supra) and directed regularization of Group-„D‟ employees. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel further contends that the petitioners are equally placed and hence, are not to be discriminated against. The decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.24545 of 2021 dated 16th August, 2024 (Bijay Kishore Nath & others Vrs. State of Odisha & another) is also cited and therein the direction was to the regularization of the services of the Drivers in the establishment of CT& GST with similar orders followed in Panchanan Dalai & others Vrs. State in W.P.(C) No.24541 of 2021.

Recorded the submission of Mr. Sahu, learned AGA for the State. The pleading of the State is that they were engaged on a daily wage basis and therefore, cannot claim continuity in service and regular appointment, as such engagement could be terminated at any time without prior notice admitting the fact that the services are contractual and on monthly remuneration basis in the posts of Drivers. An objection is raised vis-a-vis regularization of services of the petitioners, who joined as DLR Drivers, in terms of the G.A. Department Resolution dated 17th September, 2013 with the pleading that it does not apply to them as such contractual appointments must have been on abolition of corresponding regular posts or against newly created regular posts with concurrence of the Finance Department. The decisions referred to from the side of the petitioners are also countered with a pleading that the case laws in Umadevi (3) and M.L. Kesari (supra) are inapplicable. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan & others Vrs. Dayalal & others (2011) 2 SCC 429, the further pleading is that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court ought not to issue direction for regularization, absorption or permanent continuance, unless anyone of them had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant Rules within an open competitive process held against the sanctioned posts.

Gone through the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioners.

The question is whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization of their services according to the Resolution dated 17th September, 2013? Before considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Court is inclined to refer to the relevant extract of Resolution (supra) and the same is as follows. The contractual appointments/engagements made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department on abolition of the corresponding regular posts or contractual appointments/engagements made against contractual posts created with concurrence of Finance Department without abolition of any corresponding regular post in case of new offices or for strengthening of the existing offices/services, following the recruitment procedure prescribed for the corresponding regular posts and the principle of reservation of Posts and services for different categories of persons decided by the State Government from time to time. xxx Regular Appointments: On the date of satisfactory completion of six years of contractual service or from the date of publication of this Resolution, whichever is later, they shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed. A formal order of regular appointment shall be issued by the appointing authority.

It was followed by the Resolution dated 16th January, 2014 of the G.A Department, Govt. of Odisha and therein, the following are the mandatory eligibility conditionalities for regularization of contractual appointees/engagements have been stipulated, such as, (i) the contractual appointments/engagements must have been made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department on abolition of the corresponding regular posts or contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department without abolition corresponding regular post in case of new offices or for strengthening of the existing offices/services; (ii) such contractual appointments must have been made following the recruitment procedure prescribed for the corresponding regular posts; and (iii) principle of reservation of posts must have been followed in case of such contractual appointments/engagements. In other words, no contractual appointee shall be eligible for regular appointment as per aforesaid Resolution unless eligibility conditionalities described above are fulfilled.

Referring to the Resolution as above and since the conditions stipulated therein are said not to have been fulfilled, the opposite parties objected to the regularization of services of the petitioners. The denial regularization of services is based on the conclusion that there has been no regular recruitment process held in respect of the petitioners and that the principles of reservation have not been followed. The question whether on any such grounds the petitioners can be denied regularization of services? The plea of the opposite parties is that in absence of regular recruitment with open advertisement, petitioners cannot regularization of their services nor the case of the petitioners demanding regularization can be considered in juxtaposition to the objection on record.

The Apex Court in Umadevi (3) (supra) held and observed in the following words:

53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071, R.N. Nanjundappa (1972) 1 SCC 409: (1972) 2 SCR 799 and B.N. Nagarajan (1979) 4 SCC 507:1980 SCC (L&S) 4: (1979) 3 SCR 937 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 in the 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 State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to 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 tribunals and should further ensure 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 months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on 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.

regular

In M.L. Kesari (supra), the Apex Court held and concluded as hereunder: “8. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10-4- 2006).

The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of the respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs to be given, in view of Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, as a general one-time regularisation exercise, to find out whether there are any daily-wage/casual/ad hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfil the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1. If they fulfil them, their services have to be regularised. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of Respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one- time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfil the requirements of para 53 of Umadevi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years' service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, regularisation in suitable lower posts.” they may be considered

13. In Amarkant Rai Vrs. State of Bihar & others (2015) 8 SCC 265, the Apex Court held and concluded that there is an expression of general principle against regularization enunciated in Umadevi (3) (supra) if the following conditions are fulfilled and stated as hereunder: