The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.20451, 20448, 20449, 20452 & 29733 of 2022 W.P.(C) No.20451 of 2022 Satyabhama Chhatoi …. Petitioners Mr. S.B. Jena, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opp. Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA Mr. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv along with Mr.P. Mohanty, Adv. for O.P.3 & 4 Mr. N. Panda, Adv. for B.M.C CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 30.07.2025 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. All these Writ Petitions have been filed inter alia challenging the rejection of the claim to get the benefit of regularization in spite of their long continuance under Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (in short ‘Corporation’). // 2 // 4. It is contended that Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20451 of 2022 was engaged on daily wages basis on 01.07.1997, Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20448 of 2022 on 21.06.1995, Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20449 of 2022 on 21.02.1997, Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20452 of 2022 on 21.02.1998 and Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29733 of 2022 on 01.09.1994. 4.1. It is contended that on the face of such long continuance on daily wages basis, when no step was taken to regularize their services in terms of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1, State of Karnatak vs. M.L.Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, Nihal Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others, 2013 (14) SCC 65 and Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015 (8) SCC 265, Petitioners approached this Court by filing different Writ Petitions. This Court when directed for consideration of their claim for regularization in terms of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, without proper appreciation of the same, claim of the Petitioners in the present batch of cases has been rejected vide the impugned orders. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that the only ground on which claim of the Petitioners have been rejected is that they have been Page 2 of 9 // 3 // engaged on daily wages basis after the cut-off date i.e. 12.04.1993, so fixed by the Government in the Finance Department in its Resolution dtd.15.05.1997. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that even though all the Petitioners are engaged after 12.04.1993, but in view of their long continuance for more than 28 years in all the cases, the said cut-off date cannot be made applicable in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Legal Reasoning
vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and of this Court in WPC (OAC) Nos.1568 of 2018 & batch, the ground on which claim of the Petitioners has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law and they are entitled to get the benefit of regularization. 5. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel along with Mr. P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party –Corporation and Mr. N. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation in the present batch of Writ Petitions while supporting the impugned rejection contended that since the Petitioners which is not disputed were engaged after the cut-off date so fixed by the Finance Department in its Resolution dtd.15.05.1997 i.e.12.04.1993, they are not eligible to get the benefit of regularization as their very engagement is not permissible. Page 7 of 9 // 8 // 5.1. It is also contended that since the Petitioners were never engaged as against sanctioned vacant posts, they are also not eligible to get the benefit. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that the claim of the Petitioners has been rightly rejected and it requires no interference. 6. Similar contention was also made by learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that all the Petitioners were engaged on daily wages basis w.e.f. 01.09.1994, 21.06.1995, 21.02.1997, 21.02.1998 & 01.07.1997. Though, it is not disputed that all the Petitioners were engaged after 12.04.1993 i.e. cut- off date fixed by the Finance Department in the its Resolution dtd.15.05.1997, but in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vrs. Union of India & Others and Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and of this Court in WPC (OAC) Nos.1568 of 2018 & batch, it is the view of this Court that even though the Petitioners were engaged after the cut-off date, but in view of their long continuance for more than 28 years in each of the cases, the ground on which claim of the Petitioners has been rejected, as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable. It is also the view of this Court that in view of such long continuance, it is to be Page 8 of 9 // 9 // held that they are continuing against sanctioned vacant posts. 7.1. Therefore, placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Umadevi, M.L.Keshari, Nihal Singh and Amarkanta Rai followed by Jaggo and Shripal as well as the decision in WPC(OAC) No.1568 of 2018, this Court is inclined to quash the respective impugned orders passed in the present batch of Writ Petitions. While quashing all those orders, this Court directs Opposite Party-Corporation to regularize the services of the Petitioners with passing of appropriate order within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. If any request is made by the Corporation seeking sanction of the posts from the Government-Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2, the same shall also be accorded by the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 on receipt of such request without any delay.
Arguments
Jaggo vrs. Union of India & Others and Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and judgment dtd.02.05.2023 in WPC (OAC) Nos.1568 of 2018 & batch of this Court. 4.4. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-22 to 25 and 27 in the case of Jaggo reads 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 has led to an increase 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 institutions, 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 trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. Page 3 of 9 // 4 // 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. 24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the 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. in institutions, government 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 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: often • 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, Page 4 of 9 // 5 // 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 illness, retirement, or hardship, especially unforeseen circumstances. xxx xxx xxx in cases of 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 Page 5 of 9 // 6 // and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.” 4.5. 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 legitimate recruitment. the Employer undertaking 15. ……. law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. labour Indian 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. for regularizing transparent process 18.(IV) The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and 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 impose educational or procedural 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.” Page 6 of 9 // 7 // 4.6. Similarly, this Court in WPC (OAC) Nos.1568 of 2018 & batch in Para- 8.7 has held as follows: “8.7. In view of the materials available on record and in view of such long continuance for more than 20 years, it is to be held that the Petitioners are continuing as against substantive vacancies and the Opposite Parties are required to absorb the Petitioners in the regular establishment and / or in the work charged establishment. Therefore, this Court placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra) directs the Opposite Parties to absorb the Petitioners in the regular establishment and/or in the work charged establishment within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order”. 4.7. It is accordingly contended that in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vrs. Union of India & Others and Shripal and Anr.
Decision
8. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. Photocopy of the order be placed in other connected cases. Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 06-Aug-2025 11:53:10 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 9 of 9