Orissa High Court
Manoj Kumar Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 9 July, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21615 of 2021
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
..................
Manoj Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Dr. J.K. Lenka, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 09.07.2026 and Date of Judgment: 09.07.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Dr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the
Opp. Parties.
// 2 //
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may
graciously be pleased to consider the facts stated in the
petition, issue Rule NISI, calling upon the Opp. Parties to
show cause as to why the impugned rejection order
dtd.13.04.2021 at Annexure-9 should not be quashed and as
to why the Opp. Parties should not be directed to regularize
the service of the petitioner in the post of Driver in the light
of “M.L. Keshari Judgment” and Secretary. State of
Karnataka and others Vrs. Umadevi(3) and others and
judgement dtd. 15.02.2012 in W.P(C) No.8446 of 2009 in the
case of Yudhistir Dang Vrs. State of Odisha and others
within a stipulated period;
And further be pleased to declare that the petitioner
is entitled for regularization on completion of 10 years of
service against sanctioned post and also entitled to all
consequential and financial benefits;
And may pass any other order/orders, direction
/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem, just and proper.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty
bound shall ever pray.”
4. It is contended that basing on the advertisement issued by the CDM
& PHO, Kandhamal-Opp. Party No. 3 on 25.03.2006 under Annexure-
1, Petitioner was appointed as a daily wage Driver to run the
Page 2 of 28
// 3 //
Ambulance vide order dtd.01.06.2006 of Opp. Party No. 3 so issued
under Annexure-3.
4.1. It is contended that on the face of such continuance as a Daily
wager pursuant to order dtd.01.06.2006 under Annexure-3, Petitioner
when was not regularized, he along with others approached the
Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3941(C) of 2013. It is contended that the
said Original Application was disposed of along with O.A. No.
3937(C) of 2014 & batch vide order dtd.29.06.2017 under Annexure-
A/2 by directing Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to consider the claim of the
Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization on the ground that he has
already rendered more than 10 years of service as a daily wager and
taking into consideration the fact that person similarly situated, while
continuing as a daily wager was appointed as a contractual driver and
regularized subsequently.
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even
though the Tribunal directed Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to take a decision
on the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization, but the
same was rejected by Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dtd.09.10.2020
under Annexure-8, on the ground that Opp. Party No. 3 is not
Page 3 of 28
// 4 //
competent to take any decision with regard to regularization of the
services of the Petitioner.
4.3. Challenging such order passed by Opp. Party No. 3 on 09.10.2020
under Annexure-8, Petitioner again approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No. 29200 of 2020. This Court vide order dtd.10.11.2020
under Annexure-H/3 to the counter, directed Opp. Party No. 2 to
consider the claim of the Petitioner so far as regularization in service
is concerned, taking into account the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in
2006 (4) SCC 1 and the decision in the case of State of Karnataka &
Ors. vs. M.L. Keshari & Ors. reported in 2010 (II) OLR (SC) 982.
4.4. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi in Para-44 has held
as follows:-
“44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases
where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as
explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa
(supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (Supra), and referred to in
paragraph-15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the
employees have continued to work for ten years or more but
without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals.
The question of regularization of the services of such
employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of
the principles settled by this Court in the cases above
referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context,
the Union of India, the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-
Page 4 of 28
// 5 //
time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who
have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts
but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and
should further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require
to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily
wages are being now employed. The process must be set in
motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that
regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need
not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be
no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and
regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed
as per the constitutional scheme.”
4.5. Similarly Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.L. Keshari in
Para- 8 and 13 has held as follows:-
“8. Umadevi (3) casts a duty upon the Government or
instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularise the
services of those irregularly appointed employees who had
served for more than ten years without the benefit or
protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a
one-time measure. Umadevi (3) directed that such one-time
measure must be set in motion within six months from the
date of its decision (rendered on 10-4-2006).
xxx xxx xxx
13. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that
the cases of the respondents should be considered in
accordance with law. The only further direction that needs to
be given, in view of Umadevi (3), is that the Zila Panchayat,
Gadag should not undertake an exercise within six months,
as a general one-time regularisation exercise, to find out
whether there are daily-wage/casual/adhoc employees
serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees
(including the respondents) fulfil the requirements mentioned
in para-53 of Umadevi (3). If they fulfill them, their services
have to be regularised. If such an exercise has already been
undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of Respondents
1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases
Page 5 of 28
// 6 //shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one-
time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if
the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of para 53 of
Umadevi (3), their services need not be regularised. If the
employees who have completed ten years’ service do not
possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post,
at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for
regularisation in suitable lower posts.”
4.6. However, on the face of such order passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 29200 of 2020, claim of the Petitioner was rejected by
Opp. Party No. 2 vide the impugned order dt.13.04.2021 under
Annexure-9 on the ground that Petitioner is not eligible for his
absorption/appointment as a contractual driver, since his very
engagement is contrary to the resolution issued by the G.A. & P.G.
Department on dt.17.09.2013.
4.7. While assailing the impugned rejection, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner contended that it is never the case of the
Petitioner for his absorption and appointment as a contractual driver,
as Petitioner all through is claiming the benefit of regularization being
a daily wager and the Tribunal also directed accordingly in its order
dtd.29.06.2017 in O.A. No. 3937(C) of 2014 & batch under
Annexure-A/3. It is accordingly contended that since it is never the
case of the Petitioner to get the benefit of appointment as a contractual
driver, relying on the resolution issued by the G.A. & P.G.
Page 6 of 28
// 7 //
Department on 17.09.2013, which has go relevancy to the claim of the
Petitioner, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order
dt.13.04.2021 under Annexure-9 is not sustainable in the eye of law
and requires interference of this Court.
4.8. It is further contended that in view of the instruction so produced
by the learned AGA before this Court, since it is not disputed that
Petitioner is continuing as on date as a daily wage Ambulance driver
and such Ambulance is also available in the establishment of Opp.
Party No. 3, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization
is covered by the decision rendered by 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 another decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and
Others, 2026 INSC 99 and in the case of Sukhendu Bhatacharjee &
Ors. vs. the State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 523.
4.9. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo
in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as follows:-
Page 7 of 28
// 8 //
“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 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.
Page 8 of 28
// 9 //
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 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
Page 9 of 28
// 10 //
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.”
4.10. 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.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
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 employeesPage 10 of 28
// 11 //are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to
statutory and equitable norms.”
4.11. 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 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
Page 11 of 28
// 12 //
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
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
Page 12 of 28
// 13 //
(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, 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 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
Page 13 of 28
// 14 //
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.”
4.12. 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 mechanicalPage 14 of 28
// 15 //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 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:
Page 15 of 28
// 16 //
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.
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.”
4.13. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 73 to 79 of the decision in the case
of Sukhendu Bhatacharjee has held as follows:-
73. As regards the contention of Shri Gupta that after the decision
in Umadevi (supra) no regularization can be effected in respect of
employees who were not appointed against duly sanctioned posts,
we are unable to accept such a sweeping proposition in the facts of
the present case. The submission proceeds on the premise that
Umadevi (supra) lays down an absolute and inflexible embargo
against all forms of regularization irrespective of the surrounding
circumstances. Such an interpretation, in our considered view,
does not reflect the true scope and ratio of the decision.
74. This Court in Jaggo (supra), deprecated the tendency of the
State to take mechanical shelter under Umadevi (supra) to denyPage 16 of 28
// 17 //relief to employees who had been performing work of a permanent
and essential nature for long years. This Court observed as
follows: –
“12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the
appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and
continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a
decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not
sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent,
regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated
with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not
engage any other personnel for these tasks during the
appellants’ tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of
their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular
posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the
appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning
of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties
necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective
of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also
noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks
to private agencies after the appellants’ termination
demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of
outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers
with another, further underscores that the work in question
was neither temporary nor occasional.
19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants’ roles
were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those
of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over
extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse
record, warrant equitable treatment and regularization of
their services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their
arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must
be rectified.
20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi
(supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have
rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and
necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The
said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegalPage 17 of 28
// 18 //appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements.
However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly
“irregular,” and where employees had served continuously
against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a
considerable period, the need for a fair and humane
resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and
unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on
a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was
initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair
regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod
Kumar v. Union of India, it was held that held that
procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization
of service to an employee whose appointment was termed
“temporary” but has performed the same duties as
performed by theregular employee over a considerable
period in the capacity of the regular employee.
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.
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:
Page 18 of 28
// 19 //
• 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
regularemployees 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
in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to
curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is
regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or
misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving
employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between
Page 19 of 28
// 20 //
“illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held
that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged
in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for
more than ten years, should be considered for regularization
as a onetime measure. However, the laudable intent of the
judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta
to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in
cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely
lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government
departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to
argue that no vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit
acknowledgment of cases where regularization is
appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment’s
spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against
employees who have rendered indispensable services over
decades.
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
theprinciples 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.”
75. Recently, this Court in Bhola Nath (supra) while relying on the
judgment of Jaggo (supra), Shripal (supra), and Dharam Singh
(supra) observed as follows:-
“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 notPage 20 of 28
// 21 //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 adistinction 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 “adhocism” 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.”
76. What emerges from the principles enunciated in the aforesaid
decisions is that the State cannot rely upon the mere form of
engagement to deny fair and equitable treatment to employees who
have served it for long years. The consistent thread runningthrough
Page 21 of 28
// 22 //
these judgments is that Umadevi (supra) cannot be invoked as a
blanket barrier to justify prolonged and continued engagements of
a temporary or ad hoc nature, especially where the employees have
been discharging essential and recurring functions of the State. The
Court has repeatedly emphasised that the distinction between
“illegal” and “irregular” appointments must be kept in view, that
long and continuous service is a relevant consideration, and that
the State, as a model employer, is under a constitutional obligation
to act with fairness, consistency and reasonableness. The practice
of retaining employees for decades under deceptively titled
designations, while simultaneously extracting regular work
integral to the administration, has been disapproved consistently.
77. Applying these principles to the present case, it is evident that
engaging workers on muster rolls was a consistently employed
policy of the State which continued for prolonged period of time.
The appellants were not engaged for sporadic or seasonal
purposes but were taken on muster rolls and have rendered
continuous service for decades in departments performing regular
governmentalfunctions. The State itself acknowledged the
magnitude of the issue and framed a Cabinet policy to regularize
similarly situated workers, acting upon it in respect of nearly
30,000 employees. In such circumstances, to deny consideration to
the fraction of remaining eligible workers including the appellants,
by taking shelter under a rigid reading of Umadevi (supra) would
defeat the very principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness that this
Court has consistently upheld.
78. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to accept the
contention of the State that the appellants cannot be granted
regularization on the ground that they were not initially appointed
against duly sanctioned posts. The State, having engaged the
appellants prior to 1st April, 1993, utilised their services
continuously for decades, and having itself framed and
implemented a Cabinet policy regularizing nearly 30,000 similarly
situated workers, cannot now exclude the appellants by taking
shelter behind a rigid or technical reading of Umadevi (supra). In
absence of any cogent distinction or reasoned decision justifying
such exclusion, the action of the State is manifestlyarbitrary. It is
inconsistent with its obligation to function as a model employer and
does not withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Page 22 of 28
// 23 //
79. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned
judgment dated 8th June, 2017 passed by the Division Bench
cannot be sustained and is set aside and the judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 20th December, 2013 is affirmed.
Consequently, we pass the following directions:-
I. The appellants shall be treated as regularised in service in
terms of the Cabinet decision dated 22nd July, 2005 and from
the date on which similarly placed 30,000 employees were
given benefit of the said Cabinet decision.
II. The State of Assam shall identify and verify the eligible
appellants and, where necessary, create supernumerary posts
to facilitate their regularization.
III. Upon regularization, the appellants shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits, including fixation of pay in the
regular scale, continuity of service, and all applicable
pensionary and postretiral benefits in the same terms, as
wereextended to similarly situated 30,000 employees.
IV. In case of retired appellants, they shall be granted
notional regularization with consequential monetary benefits
and arrears from the relevant date until their superannuation
for the purpose of recalculating pension, gratuity, and
terminal dues.
V. In case of deceased appellants, arrears and other benefits
shall be released to their legal heirs in accordance with law.
VI. The entire exercise, including the calculation and
payment of all financial arrears, shall be completed within a
period of one year from the date of this judgment.
VII. We make it clear that the benefit of the above directions
shall only be applicable to the appellants who were working
in the departments of the State before the cut-off date
prescribed in Cabinet decision dated 22nd July, 2005 i.e.
before 1st April, 1993.”
Page 23 of 28
// 24 //
4.14. It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party No. 1 be directed to
regularize the services of the Petitioner taking into account the
continuance of the Petitioner as a daily wage driver w.e.f.01.06.2006,
in view of the decisions of the Apex Court so cited (supra) with
quashing of the impugned order dt.13.04.2021 under Annexure-9.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his
submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed
by Opp. Party No. 3. It is contended that even though Petitioner was
appointed as a daily wage Ambulance driver vide order
dtd.01.06.2006 under Annexure-3, but since such an engagement is
not against any sanctioned post in the regular establishment of Opp.
Party No. 3, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of
regularization. It is also contended that claim of Jyotiranjan Prusty is
not similar to the claim of the Petitioner. Stand taken in Para 5 & 11 of
the counter affidavit reads as follows:-
“5. That, in reply to the averments made in Paragraph 1 of the
Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that the Petitioner has been
engaged as Driver on daily wages and does not come under the
sanctioned post of the regular establishment for which, his case
can be not considered for regularization. As per direction dated
29.06.2017 of the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in OA No.3937(C)/2014, the case of thePage 24 of 28
// 25 //Petitioner has been forwarded to the Opp. Party No.2 vide letter
No.11366/ Dated. 26.10.2017 for consideration and necessary
action as the Opp. Party No.3 has no power for regularization of
Daily Wages engagement Driver without approval from the
Government. Copy of Order dtd.29.06.2017 passed in O.A.
No.3937(C)/2014 and copy of letter dtd.26.10.2017 are annexed
herewith as Annexures – A/3 & B/3 respectively.
xxx xxx xxx
11. That, in reply to the averments made in Paragraph 7 of the
Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that Sri Jyoti Ranjan Prusty
surplus/retrenched Diver, was engaged on temporary basis
against regular post as per letter No.11372 /SHTO-V-3/06,BBSR,
dated 03.10.2006 of H&FW Department, Odisha. Case of Sri.
Jyoti Ranjan Prusty is not similar with case of the Petitioner.
Photo copy of the letter No.11372 /SHTO-V-3/06, BBSR, dated
03.10.2006 of H & FW Department, Odisha is annexed herewith
as Annexure – D/3.”
5.1. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner was never
engaged as against any vacant sanctioned post, claim of the Petitioner
has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order dtd.13.04.2021
under Annexure-9.
6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate,
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further contention
contending inter alia that since it is not disputed that Petitioner is
continuing as a daily wage driver w.e.f.01.06.2006, in view of the
Page 25 of 28
// 26 //
recent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo,
Shripal and Dharam Singh, Bhola Nath and the decision in the case
of Sukhendu Bhatacharjee so cited (supra), Petitioner is eligible and
entitled to get the benefit of regularization.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, it is found that pursuant to the
advertisement issued by Opp. Party No. 3 on 25.03.2006 under
Annexure-1, Petitioner was engaged as a daily wage driver vide order
of appointment issued on 01.06.2006 under Annexure-3.
7.1. On the face of such continuance as a daily wage driver, when
Petitioner was not regularized, Petitioner along with others
approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3941(C) of 2014. The said
Original Application was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order
dt.29.06.2017 under Annexure-A/3 with a direction on Opp. Party
Nos. 1 & 2 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim. Such claim of
the Petitioner when was initially rejected by Opp. Party No. 3 vide
order dtd.09.10.2020 under Annexure-8, the matter was carried to this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 29200 of 2020.
7.2. This Court vide order dtd.10.11.2020 under Annexure-H/3 while
disposing the writ petition, remitted the matter to Opp. Party No. 2 to
Page 26 of 28
// 27 //
take a fresh decision, taking into account the decisions in the case of
Uma Devi and M.L. Keshari so cited (supra). However, on the ground
that Petitioner’s claim is to get the benefit of appointment as a
contractual driver and his claim is not covered by the P.G. & G.A.
Department Resolution dtd.17.09.2013, Petitioner’s claim was
rejected by Opp. Party No. 2 vide the impugned order dtd.13.04.2021
under Annexure-9.
7.3. It is the view of this Court that since Petitioner never claimed his
absorption as a contractual driver and order of the Tribunal so passed
under Annexure-A/3 is very clear, this Court is of the view that
relying on the G.A. Department Resolution dtd.17.09.2013,
Petitioner’s claim could not have been considered and rejected, so
rejected vide the impugned order.
7.4. Since it is not disputed that Petitioner is continuing as a daily
wage driver w.e.f.01.06.2006, placing reliance on the decisions of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam Singh,
Bhola Nath and the decision in the case of Sukhendu Bhatacharjee
so cited (supra), this Court is of the view that Petitioner is eligible and
entitled to get the benefit of regularization. Accordingly, while
holding so, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order
Page 27 of 28
// 28 //
dtd.13.04.2021 so issued by Op. Party No. 2 under Annexure-9. While
quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to
pass an appropriate order regularizing the services of the Petitioner in
the establishment of Opp. Party No. 3 within a period of three (3)
months from the date of receipt of this order.
Till a decision is taken so directed, no coercive action be
taken against the Petitioner.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 9th July, 2026/Sneha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 14-Jul-2026 18:06:18
Page 28 of 28
