The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37029 of 2023 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ……………… Sudarsan Bahalia Petitioner …. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner: M/s. N.R. Routray, Mr. J. Pradhan, S. Patra, S.K. Mohanty Advocate For Opp. Parties: M/s. S.P. Das, Addl.Standing Counsel PRESENT: THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 11.11.2025 and Date of Judgment: 11.11.2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. // 2 //
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.17.08.2023 so passed by Government-Opp. party No.1 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.977 of 2022 was rejected.
Legal Reasoning
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 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 have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, and rolling administrative further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on it demands simpliciter directions, but “reconsiderations,” drift which Page 12 of 15 // 13 // .As verifiable compliance engagement, and imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather 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, regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes in and engagement in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. that fairness transparency reaffirm and full to it 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that since Petitioner admittedly is engaged after the cut-off date fixed by the Finance Deptt. in its resolution dt.15.05.1997 under Annexure-B/3, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization. It is accordingly contended that in view of the stipulation contained in the resolution dt.15.05.1997 under Annexure-B/3, since Petitioner has been Page 13 of 15 // 14 // engaged on 20.12.1994, which is after the cut-off date, he is not covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi and M.L. Keshari. Accordingly, while considering his claim in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.977 of 2022, the same was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-11. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned rejection. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, it is not disputed that Petitioner was engaged as a D.L.R on 20.12.1994,. It is also not disputed that Petitioner from 20.12.1994 is continuing as a DLR and even on the face of rejection of his claim vide the impugned order dt.17.08.2023 under Annexure-11, Petitioner is continuing as a DLR without any break in engagement till date. 6.1. In view of such long continuance as a DLR w.e.f 20.12.1994, it is the view of this Court that Page 14 of 15 // 15 // Petitioner’s claim is required to be considered in the light of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh so cited supra. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned order dt.17.08.2023 under Annexure-11, remits the matter to Opp. party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim within a period of 3(three) months, taking into account the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court supra in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with the decisions as cited supra before Opp. party No.2 for compliance. 6.2. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 11th November, 2025 /Sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 21-Nov-2025 12:55:32 Page 15 of 15
Arguments
4. It is contended that Petitioner admittedly was engaged as a DLR on 20.12.1994. The said fact is also admitted in the statement available under Annexure-3 so issued by the Executive Engineer of the concerned Division. It is contended that on the face of such continuance as a DLR w.e.f 20.12.1994, when Petitioner was not regularized in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi and M.L. Keshari, Petitioner approached this Court claiming such benefit in W.P.(C ) No.977 of 2022. 4.1. Basing on the order passed in W.P.(C ) No.977 of 2022, Petitioner’s claim though was forwarded and no action was taken, Petitioner again approached this Page 2 of 15 // 3 // Court in W.P.(C ) No.17243 of 2022. This Court vide order dt.26.07.2022 under Annexure-9 when directed Opp. party No.2 therein to consider the claim so forwarded, without proper appreciation of the same, Petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the impugned order dt.17.08.2023 under Annexure-11. 4.2. It is contended that Petitioner’s claim was rejected only on the ground that Petitioner since has been engaged after the cut-off date fixed by the Finance Department i.e. on 12.04.1993, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization in terms of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi as well as M.L. Keshari. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner, which is not disputed, is continuing as a DLR w.e.f 20.12.1994, in view of the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam Singh, Petitioner’s claim is required to be considered afresh by Opp. party No.1. Page 3 of 15 // 4 // 4.4. It is also contended that on the face of such rejection of the Petitioner’s claim, Petitioner is continuing as before till date without any break and without being protected by any interim order. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to Opp. party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim with quashing of the impugned rejection available under Annexure-11. 4.5. It is also contended that in view of the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Others, 2024 INSC 1034, Shripal & Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144 and Dharam Singh & Others VS. State of U.P. & Another, 2025 Livelaw (SC) 818, Petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of regularisation. 4.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo in Par-22 to 25 and 27 held 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 in of the gig economy has led to an increase Page 4 of 15 // 5 // employment undermining arrangements, precarious often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers labour and standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater 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. responsibility 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 to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment job security, particularly in long-term discontinuation unemployment. stable employment and contexts where exacerbate could 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 Page 5 of 15 // 6 // 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. 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 or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • 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 insecurity, regardless of the quality or constant 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: Page 6 of 15 // 7 // 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 in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 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 job burden of unnecessary 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.” litigation, promote 4.7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal in Par-14, 15, 17 & 18(IV)has held as follows:- “14. ...... More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. to Page 7 of 15 // 8 // 15. ……. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot 17. trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. fair and transparent process 18.(IV) The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a 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 daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.” 4.8. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh in Paragraph-13,14,15 & 17,18,19 & 20 held as follows: and Shripal 13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra), (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 Page 8 of 15 // 9 // that “full-time” the appellants are not 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, 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 in legality of the State’s stance the refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon 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 dismissal without engaging the the principal challenge or with intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy” while core question of arbitrariness in the State’s sanction posts despite refusal perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained. ignoring the to 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 Page 9 of 15 // 10 // to its think address strength proposals sanctioned 25.11.2003,in so far as they concern the Commission’s for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed. 17. Before concluding, we it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market 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 that reality in and long-term engagement practices. The extraction of labour under regular temporary labels corrodes confidence in public 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, why 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 Constitution of the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is an institutional India. Sensitivity to Page 10 of 15 // 11 // to the regard creation that should inform every discipline decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 19. Having 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 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) Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each 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 the and admissible allowances at 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 and Page 11 of 15 // 12 // 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 from with regularization 24.04.2002 of 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 Judgement. effect until date the dues