Pradeep Kumar Behera vs State Of Odisha & Others …. Opposite … on 19 February, 2026
inkinccorporation@gmail.com Orissa High Court
Pradeep Kumar Behera vs State Of Odisha & Others …. Opposite … on 19 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7786 of 2021
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
..................
Pradeep Kumar Behera .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Satapathy, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:19.02.2026 and Date of Judgment:19.02.2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Satapathy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel for the State.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer
“In the circumstances of the case, the humble
petitioner fervently prays this Hon’ble Court to be
// 2 //
graciously pleased to issue notice to the Opp. parties, call
for relevant records and after hearing the counsel of
parties, issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other appropriate writ quashing impugned order No.
12361/H&FW dtd. 30.05.2020 of the Addl. Chief
Secretary to Govt., Health and Family Welfare
Department and commanding Opp. Party No.1 to
regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of
completion of Six years of contractual appointment within
a stipulated period with all consequential benefits.”
3. It is contended that vide order dated 13.04.2007
under Annexure-2, petitioner though was engaged as a
Sweeper on contractual basis in PHC(N), Tarikund and
was allowed to continue as such with passing of further
order on 31.08.2010 under Annexure-3 in allowing the
petitioner to continue on full time basis, but no action
was taken on the face of the recommendation made by
the concerned authority under Annexure-4. Petitioner
when was not regularized, but persons similarly
situated and recommended under Annexure-4, were
regularized vide order dated 12.04.2018 under
Annexure-5.
3.1. It is contended that claim of the petitioner when
was not considered for his absorption, petitioner
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1020 of
2020. This Court vide order dated 20.01.2020, when
Page 2 of 16
// 3 //
directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim for
regularization, the same has been rejected vide the
impugned order dated 30.05.2020 under Annexure-1.
3.2. It is contended that only on the ground that
petitioner’s engagement does not come within the
purview of Resolution dated 17.09.2013 and
16.01.2014 of the G.A. Department, such claim of the
petitioner was rejected.
3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
since basing on self-same recommendation made under
Annexure-4, persons similarly situated were
regularized vide order dated 12.04.2018 under
Annexure-5, petitioner’s claim could not have been
rejected on the ground indicated under Annexure-1.
3.4. It is further contended that even after rejection of
the petitioner’s claim vide order dated 30.05.2020,
petitioner is continuing on contractual basis as on
date. It is accordingly contended that in view of the
decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine
Page 3 of 16
// 4 //
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 another decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of
Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99, petitioner is
eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization
and appropriate direction be issued to Opp. Party No.1
to absorb the petitioner in the regular establishment.
3.5. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Jaggo in Para-22 to 25 and 27 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.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of
which India is a founding member, has consistently
Page 4 of 16
// 5 //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.
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.
Page 5 of 16
// 6 //
• 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 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 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.”
3.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal in
Para-14, 15, 17 & 18(IV) has held as follows:-
Page 6 of 16
// 7 //
“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.
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 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
daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable
norms.”
3.7. 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”
Page 7 of 16
// 8 //
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
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 with the principal
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
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
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 its
sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The
long-term extraction of regular labour under
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
Page 8 of 16
// 9 //
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 India. Sensitivity to the human
consequences of prolonged insecurity 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
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, thePage 9 of 16
// 10 //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 from 24.04.2002 until the date 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
Judgment.
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 have framed these directions
comprehensively because, case after case, orders of
this Court in such matters have been met with fresh
technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and
administrative drift which 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 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
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.”
Page 10 of 16
// 11 //
3.8. 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 the respondents as the
obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to
fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether
their engagement is contractual or regular.
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, this Court underscored that government
departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and
stable employment, and evolved the test of examining
whether the duties performed by such temporary
employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of
the organization.
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
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
Page 11 of 16
// 12 //
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 formal contractual clauses. Such action is
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.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing
paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing
the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a
decade under the nomenclature of contractual
engagement and thereafter denying them consideration
for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing
engagement solely on the basis of contractual
nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or
passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for
regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees.
Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to
waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual
stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from
constitutional scrutiny.
Page 12 of 16
// 13 //
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 in a manner inconsistent with
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.”
4. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been
issued since 04.03.2021 but no counter affidavit has
been filed as yet. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel
however basing on the materials available on record,
contended that since petitioner while being so engaged
vide order dated 13.04.2007, never faced any
recruitment process and O.R.V. Act was not followed,
his claim to get the benefit of regularization is not
covered by the Resolution issued by the G.A.
Department on 17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014.
4.1. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner
got the benefit of engagement without facing any
recruitment process and such an appointment has
been made without following the provisions of O.R.V.
Act, his claim has been rightly rejected vide the
Page 13 of 16
// 14 //
impugned order after due consideration and it requires
no interference.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds
that petitioner was initially engaged as a contractual
Sweeper vide order of engagement issued on
13.04.2007 under Annexure-2 of Opp. Party No.3.
Subsequently, vide order dated 31.08.2010, petitioner
was allowed to continue as a Full Time Sweeper so
issued under Annexure-3.
5.1. It is also found that petitioner’s name was
recommended along with other employees vide
Annexure-4 for their regularization. While some of the
recommended candidates were regularized vide order
dated 12.04.2018 under Annexure-5, but petitioner’s
claim when was not considered, he approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1020 of 2020. This Court
vide order dated 20.01.2020, when directed for
consideration of the petitioner’s claim, the same has
been rejected vide the impugned order dated
Page 14 of 16
// 15 //
30.05.2020 under Annexure-1, only on the ground that
petitioner’s claim does not come within the purview of
the Resolution issued by the G.A. Department on
17.09.2013 & 16.01.2014.
5.2. This Court taking into account the fact that
petitioner is continuing without any break since
13.04.2007 on contractual basis and even after
rejection of his claim, he is continuing as such till date,
placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam
Singh and recent the decision in the case of Bhola
Nath so cited (supra), this Court is of the view that
petitioner’s claim requires a fresh consideration in the
light of the aforesaid judgments and the benefit
extended vide order under Annexure-5.
5.3. This Court accordingly while quashing the
impugned order dated 30.05.2020 under Annexure-1,
directs Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the
petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization,
taking into account the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Page 15 of 16
// 16 //
Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal and Dharam
Singh and recent the decision in the case of Bhola
Nath so cited (supra) and the benefit of order dated
12.04.2018 so issued under Annexure-5.
5.4. This Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh
decision within a period of 2 (two) months from the
date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to
provide a copy of this order along with the decisions as
cited (supra) and the order available under Annexure-5,
before Opp. Party No.1 for compliance.
Till a decision is taken as directed, no coercive
action be taken against the petitioner.
6. The Writ Petition stands dispose of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 19th February, 2026/Basudev
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 24-Feb-2026 11:29:45
Page 16 of 16
