Ashok Kumar Nandi v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Judgment

04.05.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: // 2 // It is in the circumstances, humbly prayed that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit the writ Petition, issue notice to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why this writ petition shall not be allowed and if the Opp. Parties do not show cause of show insufficient or false cause then after hearing the Counsel for the parties be pleased to allow the writ petition by quashing the report/order of the Collector, Puri (Opp. Party No.2) as at (Annexure-8) and direct the Opp. Parties to regularize the services of the Petitioner and pay all his unpaid wages including all consequential relief and be further pleased to pass any other or further order/orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; And for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a daily Wage Work Sarkar in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3 w.e.f 01.09.1992 and the same is reflected in order dt.21.01.1993 so issued by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-1. It is contended that even though the Petitioner was allowed to continued as a daily wage Work Sarkar, in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3 w.e.f 01.09.1992 and when he was not regularised, he moved Opp. Party No.3 on 06.05.2013 under Annexure-2 with a prayer to absorb him in the post in question. // 3 //

4.1. As the claim of the Petitioner was not considered, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1338 of 2015. The Tribunal vide order dt.08.08.2016 under Annexure-4 while directing Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation so recommended by Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 vide letter dt.01.07.2013 under Annexure-3, also directed for release of the wages as due and admissible w.e.f October, 2014.

4.2. It is contended that since the order passed by the Tribunal was not complied, Petitioner filed CONTC (CPC ) No.461 of 2016 and thereafter CONTC No.4566 of 2022 seeking compliance of order dt.08.08.2016. However, impugned communicated vide Memo dt.31.10.2022, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation was rejected, the Contempt Petition was dropped vide order dt.13.12.2022 under Annexure-7.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though claim of the Petitioner // 4 // was rejected, so far as regularisation is concerned, but on the face of his working in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 as a daily wage Work Sarkar all through, his salary w.e.f October, 2014 was never released in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 08.08.2016 under Annexure-4.

4.4. It is also contended that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim was rejected, so far as regularisation is concerned vide the impugned order communicated vide Memo dt.31.10.2022 under Annexure-8, relying on a communication issued by the Panchayat Raj Department on 16.10.2014 under Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit, is not sustainable in the eye of law, as Petitioner was engaged as a daily Wage Sarkar w.e.f 01.09.1992 so reflected in Annexure-1 and stipulation contained in Annexure-A/3 on 16.10.2014 cannot be made applicable to the Petitioner’s claim.

4.5. It is contended that since Petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Work Sarkar w.e.f 01.09.1992, stipulation contained in the communication issued by the Government-Opp. Party No.1 on 16.10.2014 under // 5 // Annexure-A/3, so far as engagement of daily wage personnel the Panchayat Samiti, District Panchayat, Grama Panchayat offices are concerned, cannot be made applicable to the case of the Petitioner.

4.6. It is also contended that even though Petitioner continued beyond October, 2014, but he was not paid with his salary/wages w.e.f October, 2014. Not only that, on the face of such long continuance, Petitioner is yet to be regularised in his services. It is accordingly contended that with quashing of the impugned communicated vide Memo dt.31.10.2022 under Annexure-8, Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 be directed to regularise the services of the Petitioner and release the wages as due and admissible w.e.f October, 2014.

5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand relying on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contended that since Petitioner is not working beyond October, 2014 and his initial engagement is irregular, in view of the stipulation contained in communication // 6 // dt.16.10.2014 under Annexure-A/3, while complying the direction of the Tribunal, Petitioner’s claim was rejected by Opp. Party No.2 vide order communicated on 31.10.2022 under Annexure-8.

5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner is not continuing beyond October, 2014 and his initial engagement is not in terms of letter dt. 16.10.2014 under Annexure-A/3, Petitioner is neither eligible to get the benefit of wages w.e.f October, 2014, nor he is eligible to get the benefit of regularisation. It is accordingly contended that no illegality and irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

6. The stand taken in the counter affidavit, Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission contending inter alia that Petitioner’s continuance beyond October, 2014 cannot be disputed, in view of the documents available under Annexures-9,10 & 11 series. It is contended that since Petitioner continued beyond October, 2014 so reflected the documents available under Annexures-9 to 11, stand taken by the Opp. Parties // 7 // that Petitioner is not continuing beyond October, 2014 cannot be accepted. It is also contended that since Petitioner w.e.f 1.09.1992 is continuing as on date on daily wages basis, he is eligible to get the benefit of regularisation and so also release of the salary/wages w.e.f October, 2014.

7. Considering the stand taken in the counter affidavit, this Court passed the following order on

02.12.2025.

1. This matter is taken up This Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode through Hybrid.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Taking into account the stand taken in Para- 8 of the counter affidavit vis-a-vis the stand taken before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1338(C) of 2015, so available under Annexure-4, this Court directs learned Addl. Standing Counsel to obtain instruction as to how on the face of the admission made before the Tribunal, a stand has been taken that petitioner is not working beyond the October, 2014.

4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel is directed to file an affidavit in that regard.

5. As requested, list this matter in the week commencing 12.01.2026.

8. Pursuant to the said order, a further affidavit has been filed by Opp. Party No.3 on 23.03.2026. Basing on the said affidavit, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate // 8 // contended that even though Petitioner has been allowed to discharge his duty beyond October, 2014, so reflected in Annexures-9 to 11, but Petitioner is not continuing on regular basis and he has been allowed to discharge his duty for certain period. It is however contended that since Petitioner’s initial engagement is contrary the stipulation contained notification issued on 16.10.2014 under Annexure- A/3, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of regularisation and the same has been rightly rejected.

9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Work Sarkar in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3 w.e.f 01.09.1992, so reflected in Office Order dt.21.01.1993 under Annexure-1. Even though Petitioner was allowed to continue as daily wage Work Sarkar w.e.f 21.01.1992 and he was not regularised, Petitioner made a grievance before Opp. Party No.3 on

06.05.2013 under Annexure-2. The said grievance though was recommended by Opp. Party No.2 vide // 9 // letter dt.1.7.2013, but the same when was not considered, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1338 of 2015.

9.1. The Tribunal vide order dt.08.08.2016, while disposing the matter, directed Opp. Party No.2 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim taking into account the recommendation made by Opp. Party No.3 in his letter dt.01.07.2013. The Tribunal also directed Opp. Party No.3 to release the wages w.e.f October, 2014, if the Petitioner is working regularly.

9.2. The aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal was never challenged by the State. However claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation was rejected vide the impugned order communicated on

31.10.2022 under Annexure-8, relying on stipulation contained in letter dt.16.10.2014 so enclosed as Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit.

9.3. It is the view of this Court that since Petitioner was engaged as a daily wage Work Sarkar w.e.f 01.09.1992, stipulation contained in letter dt.16.10.2014 under // 10 // Annexure-A/3 cannot be made applicable to the claim of the Petitioner, as such stipulation can only be made applicable prospectively.

9.4. Not only that, on the face of the documents available under Annexures-9 to 11 and nature of the order passed by the Tribunal on 08.08.2016, it cannot be held that Petitioner has not worked beyond October,

2014. Taking into account the long continuance of the Petitioner as a daily wage Work Sarkar w.e.f 01.09.1992 and the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 and lastly in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99, this Court is of the view that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularisation .

9.5. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as follows:- // 11 // increase precarious “22. The pervasive misuse 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 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.

23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair ILO’s Multinational treatment of workers. The Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and It emphasizes that enterprises social security. should assume a in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment. leading role illustrating consequences

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, 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 principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judgment underscores employment status // 12 // judiciary’s role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long- term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: seasonal needs, • 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. in cases of // 13 //

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.”

9.6. 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 the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.

15. ……. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. xxxxxx

17. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the 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 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 // 14 // daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.”

9.7. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jaggo and Shripal, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh, in Paragraph-13, 14, 15 & 17, 18, 19 & 20 has held as follows: “13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work 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 the 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 subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State’s stance in in 1999 or upon refusing sanction, whether 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 the principal dismissal without engaging with 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.

15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing 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 // 15 // reality regular Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed. xxx xxx xxx 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and is not a mere market the State governments) 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 sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of labour under in public labels corrodes confidence temporary 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, 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 with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the India. Sensitivity to the human Constitution of consequences of prolonged 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 appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation 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 create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each insecurity // 16 // 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 /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in 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 superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment. from 24.04.2002 until the date iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal 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 affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement. 20. We directions framed comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, administrative drift which 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, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance .As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial “reconsiderations,” further prolongs rolling // 17 // workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these 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 and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”

9.8. It is contended that in the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath so cited (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13.5 to 14 of the judgment has held as follows:- “13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and has been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular. the respondents as

13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether temporary the duties performed by such employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. this Court underscored

13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise // 18 // exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.

13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices.

13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason.

13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State’s contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants’ engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution. formal contractual clauses. Such action FINAL CONCLUSION: In

14. paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows: light of our discussion, foregoing I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a contractual the nomenclature decade under engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization. // 19 // long-standing II. Abrupt discontinuance of such engagement solely on contractual nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. the basis of III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny. rights, and fundamental IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long- serving employees inconsistent with in a manner fairness, dignity and constitutional governance. V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment.”

9.9. In view of the aforesaid analysis and the decisions so cited supra, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.31.10.2022 so communicated by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-8. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 to regularise the services of the Petitioner as against the post of Work Sarkar or against any Group-D post in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3 with passing of an order within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order. This Court also directs Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 to release the wages as due and // 20 // admissible w.e.f October, 2014 within a period of 4(four) weeks hence.

10. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 4th May, 2026/Sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 08-May-2026 11:30:41