State of Odisha, represented v. Machhua Ho & Ors.

Mr.Mohanty tells us that they were given a consolidated pay of Rs.3050/- per month. They were ventilating their grievance before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.404(C)/2015 against non-regularization of their services in terms of G.A. Department Resolution dated 17.09.2013, which provided for such regularization after completion of a continuous service of six years with non-blemish. The State Administrative Tribunal, vide order dated 10.03.2017, directed their regularization with effect from the date they had completed such period of service.

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- employees tells us that the above order of the Tribunal was in challenge in W.P.(C) No.14761/2018 by Appellants herein and the challenge was negatived by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2019. Despite this, the Appellants took a decision based on a Cabinet Decision dated

22.03.2021 whereby regularization was made effective from the date of that decision. In other words, the regularization, which the Appellants ought to have granted to the Respondent- employees with effect from the date they completed six years of service pursuant to the order of the State Administrative Tribunal, stood postponed by about six years. This, learned Single Judge in Respondents’ W.P.(C) No.10372/2022 faltered and granted relief consistent with the order of the State Administrative Tribunal.

With the above backdrop, the present Intra-Court Appeal by the State & its functionaries has been preferred against learned Single Judge’s order dated 27.06.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.10372 of 2022.

Learned AGA Mr.Mohanty vehemently argues that the appointment itself was contractual and therefore, the Respondents could not claim the benefit of regularization with effect from the date on which they completed six years of service, more particularly in the teeth of Cabinet Decision. This is very difficult to countenance and reasons for this are not far to seek: Firstly, the policy decision of the Government, as expressed in the G.A. Department’s Resolution

17.09.2013 provided regularization immediately after the completion of six years of continuous service reckoned from the date of entry. Admittedly, the Respondents had completed six years of service way back in 2016. They had also fought a legal battle on the floor of the State Administrative Tribunal successfully and the Tribunal, vide order dated 10.03.2017, had directed as under:

In view of the admission in the counter, the respondents are directed to release the enhanced arrear consolidated pay at the rate of Rs.5200/- PM from the date of joining of the copy of this order, failing which the arrear dues shall be paid with 7% interest thereon So far as regularization is concerned, the respondents are directed to take a decision in terms of GA Department Notification dated 17.09.2013 to regularize the service of the applicants after completion of six years of their contractual appointment. This exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order…

To add to the above, secondly, this order of the Tribunal was unsuccessfully challenged by the Appellants in W.P.(C) No.14761/2018, which was negatived by the Coordinate Bench dated 24.01.2019. No further challenge was laid before the Apex Court. Thus, the matter has attained finality. That being the position, is un- understandable as to why the Cabinet could take a decision on 22.03.2021 to postpone the benefit of regularization by six years. It is absolutely unjustified looking to the order of the Tribunal that had secured imprimatur of the Coordinate Bench in a challenge mounted by the Appellant in Appellants’ W.P.(C) No.14761/2018 dismissed

24.01.2019. The decision of the Cabinet is nothing short of affront to the judicial process. We have also noted the lenient view taken by the learned Single Judge in awarding 50% of the benefit, whey arguably Respondents were entitled to 100%. In the above circumstances, both on the ground of delay and on merits, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is. The Appellant to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge on a war footing and report compliance of the Registrar General of this Court within an outer limit of three months, failing which is open for the Respondents to move an application before this Court for levying heavy cost on the erring officials. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 27-Feb-2026 14:23:34