The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22419 of 2023 Ranjan Kumar Mohanty … Petitioner Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite parties Ms. B. Dash, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 01.07.2025 Order No. 02. 1. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned orders dated 26th February, 2020 and 16th May, 2023 as at Annexure-7 series and further to issue direction to the opposite parties to regularize his services as against a Group-D post and release the consequential and financial benefits in his favour on the grounds stated therein. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sitaram Behera Vrs. State of Odisha and others MANU/OR/0577/2025 is placed reliance on besides Jaggo Vrs. Union of India (UOI) and others AIR 2025 SC 296. Referring to Jaggo (supra), it is contended that the petitioner having been in contractual service ever since 2008, since not regularized in service and in view of the decision in Sitaram Behera (supra), the action of opposite party No.3 with the impugned decision i.e. Annexure-7 series cannot be sustained in the eye of law and hence, liable to be interfered with followed by consequential directions issued. 4. Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, refers to the counter affidavit of opposite party No.3 and submits that the appointment has been temporary in respect of the petitioner and it was renewed on yearly basis on such terms and conditions as made to reveal from Annexure-B/3 and therefore, he cannot turn back and demand regularization, which is the absolute prerogative of opposite party No.3 and hence, there has been no error or illegality committed, while denying the same as per Annexure-7 series. In support of such contention, Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State relies on the citation of the apex Court in the case of the Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer & another Vrs. Chiggan Lal & others (2022) 19 SCC 662 reiterating the plea that regularization is Page 4 of 9 always the prerogative of the employer and hence, petitioner cannot be permitted to demand the same as a matter of right. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially engaged as a casual labourer and lastly, it was followed by an order of appointment dated 11th August, 2008 i.e. Annexuree-2. On a proper reading of Annexure-2, it is made to understand that the petitioner in view of the order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1380 of 2007 was engaged as a contractual Group-D LAC, Goda though with the conditions that he cannot claim regularization in future. Such appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on 30th October, 2008 as per Annexure-3 and in view of the facts narrated hereinbefore, he was reinstated thereafter on 30th January, 2009 and it was followed by the order of the learned Tribunal in OA No.205 of 2009. In fact, the petitioner was reinstated once again in Group-D post on a contractual basis so made to reveal from Annexure-6 referring to G.A. Department Resolution dated 12th September, 2017 subject to final outcome in W.P.(C) No.19802 of 2012. Since the order in O.A. No.205 of 2009 was complied with by reinstatement of the petitioner on 18th January, 2019, W.P.(C) No.19802 of 2012 was disposed of on 21st August, 2019, as it had become infructuous. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner has been in service on a contractual post since 11th August, 2008. The question is whether the petitioner having rendered service as a contractual employee clearly revealed from Annexure-2 and hence amenable to the Rules prevailing, opposite party No.3 was right and justified to treat him as a casual labourer conferring him a temporary status? Page 5 of 9 6. On a reading of Annexure-D/3 referring to the scheme for grant of temporary status and absorption of casual/daily casual labourers in the Government Establishment prior to 13th February, 2019 against regular Group-D post, this Court is of the humble view that it is inapplicable to the case of the petitioner, so to say. The Resolution dated 4th September, 2012 of the Finance Department Government of Odisha stipulates that a scheme is formulated for grant of ‘Temporary Status’ and absorption of Casual/Daily wage labourers engaged in different Government establishments prior to 12th April 1993. In so far as the engagement of the petitioner is concerned, he was appointed as Casual labourer on 3rd July, 1995 and by no stretch of imagination, it would have been held so having been appointed on a contractual basis with the issuance of appointment letter dated 11th August, 2008 i.e. Annexure-2. According to the Court, when the petitioner was treated as contractual employee appointed against a substantive Group-D post, it was not justified for opposite party No.3 to consider the claim for regularization referring to the Resolution i.e. Annexure-D/3 dated 4th September, 2012. Instead, in the humble view of this Court, the petitioner’s case was to be treated as per Resolution of the Finance Department dated 12th September, 2017 read with the Rules, 2022. It is claimed by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time when Rules, 2022 was introduced, others appointed on contractual basis were regularized. In view of Rules, 2022 and Section 4 thereof, it allowed the employees whose services have been so regularized to receive service benefits like promotion etc. in the cadre on Page 6 of 9 notional basis. The claim of the petitioner is that either way as per Rules, the service was to be regularized and in case of Rules, 2022 upon such regularization, he would have been allowed service benefits on notional basis, but the same has been denied vide Annexure-7 upon rejection of representation of the petitioner. 7. In so far as the decision in Sitaram Behera (supra) is concerned, and referred to by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, therein the petitioner was engaged as a Casual labourer in the year 1990 and demanded regularization for having rendered 31 years of continuous service and taking into account the decision of the Apex Court in Jaggo (supra) with reference to the case law of Umadevi (3) held and concluded that a case is made out for regularization in view of continuity in service and hence, he was allowed with consequential financial benefits as was due and admissible to him. The Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner is similarly situated like Sitaram Behera (supra), hence, therefore, is eligible and entitled for regularization with service benefits. 8. As regards the contention of Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State with reference to the decision in Chiggan Lal (supra) with the submission that regularization of the petitioner’s service to be the prerogative of opposite party No.3, on a proper reading of the same, the Court finds that it was with respect to payment of arrears demanded from an anterior date to be the subject matter dealt with therein. The aforesaid decision has been referred to in State of Odisha and another Vrs Arun Kumar Page 7 of 9 Nath & others in W.A. No.408 of 2025 disposed of on 18th June, 2025 and therein, the writ petition filed by the State was dismissed confirming the order of the learned Judge with the conclusion that the pay scale cannot be reckoned from an anterior date demanded with the plea that parity should be extended. 9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and being alive to the legal position as discussed hereinbefore with reference to the case laws cited, this Court is of the ultimate conclusion that the petitioner having rendered services ever since 2008 after being appointed on contractual basis against a substantive post of Group-D at LAC, Goda, he was to be treated so instead of a Casual labourer, and therefore, the decision of opposite party No.3 placing reliance on the Resolution dated 4th September, 2012 at Annexure-D/3 of the Finance Department Government of Odisha denying regularization cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In other words, the service of the petitioner is to be regularized forthwith. In so far as agreement dated 18th January, 2019 at Annexure-B/3 is concerned, as it has been referred to by Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State, it is made to understand that the same was executed by the petitioner at the time of contractual service as was necessary in terms of the Rules in place. 10. Accordingly, it is ordered. 11. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned decision by order dated 16th May, 2023 as per Annexure-7 of opposite party No.3 is hereby Page 8 of 9 quashed with a direction for regularization of services of the petitioner forthwith on the basis of the contractual appointment as per Annexure-2 and to conclude the above exercise as soon as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. Alok (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 02-Jul-2025 19:26:26 Page 9 of 9
Arguments
Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Attendant on casual basis in the year 1995 and was disengaged on 1st June, 1997, while regularizing seven others. The submission is that the petitioner thereafter moved the Odisha Administrative Tribunal Page 1 of 9 in O.A. No.1380 of 2007 for a direction to engage him in the vacancy and it was followed by order dated 8th March, 2001. It is further submitted that despite availability of vacancy, the case of the petitioner was not taken up but lastly the decision for implementation of the order dated 27th September, 2008 was considered by the State Government on 10th July, 2008 as per Annexure-1 and it led to the issuance of appointment order dated 11th August, 2008. It is also submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a contractual Group-D at LAC, Goda against a substantive vacant post. It is pleaded that after such appointment of the petitioner, he was allowed to continue in service till 30th October, 2008, the date which, the appointment order as per Annexure-2 was cancelled and against such cancellation, O.A. No.1406 of 2008 was filed before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal and by order dated 26th November, 2008, he was directed to be reinstated in service after quashing the order of cancellation i.e. Annexure-3. The contention is that though the order dated 26th November, 2008 of the learned Tribunal was implemented but it was only for a month, whereafter, the petitioner was constrained to once again move the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.205 of 2009, wherein, the order dated 30th January, 2009 was quashed with a direction for reinstatement. Consequent upon such an order i.e. Annexure-5, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was reinstated in Group-D post on contractual basis as per the Odisha Group-C & Group-D Contractual Appointment Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Rules’) in view of the Resolution dated 12th September, 2017 of the G.A. Department, Page 2 of 9 Government of Odisha as at Annexure-6. The further contention is that the Rules was abolished in the year 2022 vide notification dated 16th October, 2022 in view of Odisha Group ‘B’, ‘C’ & Group ‘D’ Posts (Repeal & Special Provisions) Rules, 2022 (in short the Rules, 2022). The submission is that if the resolution dated 12th September, 2013 is applied, the services rendered by the petitioner would have been regularized on completion of six years with effect from 12th August, 2008 but it stood intervened by the notification dated 16th October, 2022 and in any case, as per such notification, the services of the employees allowed to be regularized would receive all such service benefits like promotion etc. on notional basis. Lastly, it is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel that the order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal was challenged by the State Government in W.P.(C) No.19802 of 2012 and it was finally disposed of vide order dated 21st August, 2019. Since the reinstatement of the petitioner was complied with on 18th January, 2019 and it was on contractual basis as per the Rules w.e.f. 11th August, 2008, unfortunately, while considering the representation received from him, opposite party No.3 declined regularization of service treating him as casual labour and his appointment on temporary basis. The contention is that as per the Rules, the petitioner was entitled to be regularized in service vis- à-vis upon completion of six years from the date of appointment on contractual basis but the same was denied and that apart, upon notification dated 16th October, 2022 issued by the State Government with the introduction of the Rules, 2022, in case of any such service benefits one is entitled to receive though on Page 3 of 9 notional basis but instead, regularization has been denied vide Annexure-7 series. The contention is that the petitioner rendered continuous service from 11th August, 2008 on contractual basis against Group-D substantive post and hence, he is entitled to be regularized. While advancing such argument, a decision of the