Orissa High Court
Ananta Charan Bal vs State Of Odisha on 7 March, 2026
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No.3584 of 2014
In the matter of an Application under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950
read with
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
***
Ananta Charan Bal
Aged about 59 years
Son of Late Giridhari Bal
At/P.O.: Janara Barimula
P.S/District: Kendrapara
At present working as
Watchman
Under the Rural Works Division
Kendrapara … Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. State of Odisha
Represented by
Secretary
Department of Rural Works, Odisha,
New Secretariat Building, Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha
2. Chief Engineer
Rural Works, Odisha
Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha
3. Executive Engineer
Rural Works Division
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 1 of 75
Kendrapara
At/P.O./District: Kendrapara
4. Secretary
Works Department
Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha
5. Superintending Engineer
NH Circle (North), Bhubaneswar
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha. …Opposite parties
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : M/s. Bipin Kumar Nayak,
Mihir Kanta Rath, AdvocatesFor the Opposite parties : Mr. Saswat Das,
Additional Government Advocate
along with
Mr. Prem Kumar Mohanty,
Additional Standing CounselP R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMANDate of Hearing : 20.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 07.03.2026
J UDGMENT
Aggrieved by Office Order No.4 of 2011-12, dated
25.02.2012 of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works
Division, Kendrapara, bringing the petitioner, a Daily
Labour Roll (“DLR”, for short) employee, brought over to
Work-Charged Establishment (Annexure-8) instead ofWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 2 of 75
regularising his service against available vacancies in
the Regular Establishment as disclosed in Letter vide
Memo No.1335, dated 21.03.1998 of the Superintending
Engineer, Central Circle, Rural Works, Bhubaneswar
(Annexure-9), an Original Application under Section 19
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, registered as
O.A. No.3584 (C) of 2014, was filed before the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack
beseeching following relief(s):
“In view of the facts stated above in paragraph-6, the
applicant prays for the following relief(s):-
(i) Let the action of the respondent in bring over the
applicant to the Work Charged Establishment as per
order dated 25.02.2012 under Annexure-8 instead
of regularizing the services of the applicant in terms
of Annexure-9 and the regularization of similarly
situated DLRs working in different Division of Works
Department in the facts and circumstances of the
case be declared as illegal.
(ii) Let the respondents be directed to regularize the
services of the applicant in terms of Annexure-9 and
similar orders passed by different Divisions coming
under works Department i.e. from the year 1998
within a stipulated time.
(iii) Let the respondents be directed to extend all service
and financial benefits on such regularization of the
applicant from the year 1998 till his retirement
within a stipulated time.
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 3 of 75
(iv) Let any other order/orders be passed as deem fit
and proper.”
1.1. After abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by
virtue of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training)
Notification F. No.A-11014/10/2015-AT [G.S.R.552(E).],
dated 2nd August, 2019), the said case having been
transferred to this Court, O.A. No.3584(C) of 2014 has
been re-registered as WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014.
Facts:
2. From the adumbrated facts on record, it can be culled
out that the petitioner, engaged as DLR employee under
the category “Unskilled Watchman” in the Office of the
Executive Engineer, Expressway Division, Kendrapara
(Now R&B Division No.II) on 14.05.1984, being
transferred to the Rural Works Division, Kendrapara,
joined on 31.10.1991.
2.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that without reckoning
his service rendered to the employer since 14.05.1984,
although the petitioner seamlessly continued to serve
the Rural Works Department, Government of Odisha
despite his transfer in the year 1991, he has not been
accorded benefit in service. Pursuant to the orders dated
28.07.1998 and 18.05.2000 of the Works Department,
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 4 of 75
similarly situated persons who joined as DLR
Employees, have been regularized in their services.
2.2. By Letter bearing No.RWSE-III-26/09-14911/RD, dated
23.02.2009 issued by the Government of Odisha in
Rural Development Department, 1565 numbers of NMR/
DLR employees working under the Rural Works
Organisation and 1805 numbers of NMR/DLR
employees working under the RWS&S Organization
being engaged prior to 13.04.1993 were brought over to
the Work-Charged Establishment in terms of
instructions of the Odisha Work-Charged Employees
(Appointment and Condition of Service) Instruction,
1974.
2.3. Though the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No.1
under the heading of “Watchman (Unskilled)” in the
Detailed Seniority List of NMR/DLR employees working
under the Rural Works Division, Kendrapara (Annexure-
4), against the column “Date of Engagement”, it is
reflected as “Since 1984”. The petitioner supplied
information to the Authority concerned showing his date
of engagement as “14.05.1984”.
2.4. Despite such step being taken, the authority concerned
having not carried out necessary correction in the
seniority list, the employees engaged latter to the
petitioner have been accorded benefit of regularization in
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 5 of 75
service. Flagging such issue, the petitioner approached
the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack
Bench, Cuttack by way of an Original Application,
bearing O.A. No.814(C) of 2011, under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which came to be
disposed of on 23.03.2011 with a direction to the Chief
Engineer and Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division,
Kendrapara to consider the Original Application as
representation and pass appropriate orders thereon.
2.5. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the Executive
Engineer, Rural Works Division, Kendrapara issued
Office Order No.4 of 2011-2012, dated 25.02.2012
reckoning the engagement of the petitioner prior to
12.04.1993, which reads as thus:
“Government of Odisha
Office of the Executive Engineer
Rural Works Division, KendraparaOffice Order No.4 of 2011-12
In pursuance of Letter No.3226 dt.24.02.2012 of Chief
Engineer, Rural Works-I (O) Bhubaneswar received along
with approved list of the following identified DLR workers
who are engaged prior to 12.04.1993 are hereby
provisionally brought over to the Work-Charged
Establishment in the post/scale of pay/category etc. as
indicated against them from the date of their joining.
The Service condition will be regulated as per provision
laid down in Odisha Work-Charged EmployeesWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 6 of 75
(Appointment and Condition of Service) Instruction, 1974
and amendments made thereon.
The appointment is purely temporary and subject to
fulfilment of the condition of the appointment attached
here with.
No TTA will be allowed for the purpose of joining in place
of posting.
Sl. Name of the Identified Date of Birth Category Post in which Office where
No DLRs appointed/Pay in posted
Scale
1. Sri Hrusikesh Parida 24.04.1971 Mate 0440- RW Sub-
14680GP-1300 Division,
Marsaghai
2. Sri Ananta Charan Bal 05.02.1955 Watch 4440-14680 R W Sub-
Man GP-1300 Division,
Kendrapara
Sd/- D.P. Dash
Executive Engineer
RW Division, Kendrapara"
2.6. While the petitioner was continuing in the Expressway
Division, Kendrapara, he was transferred to the Rural
Works Division, Kendrapara with effect from 31.10.1991.
Since the similarly situated persons were allowed to
continue in the Expressway Division, Kendrapara as well
as other Divisions coming under the Works Department,
they have been regularized pursuant to Letters dated
28.07.1998 and 18.05.2000 issued by the Government
in the Works Department. The Superintending Engineer,
Rural Works, Central Circle vide his communication
addressed to opposite party No.2 dated 21.03.1998
submitted the list of eligible DLR employees for theirWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 7 of 75
absorption in Class-IV (Group-D) posts in the Rural
Works Division, Kendrapara.
2.7. The petitioner is aggrieved by Office Order dated
25.02.2012 issued by the Executive Engineer, R.W.
Division, Kendrapara, whereby his service was brought
over to the Work-Charged Establishment in the post of
Watchman, even though it transpires from Letter vide
Memo No.1335 dated 21.03.1998 of the Superintending
Engineer, Central Circle, Rural Works, Bhubaneswar
(Annexure-9) that five numbers of Sweeper-cum-Night
Watchman posts were lying vacant under the Rural
Works Division, Kendrapara. It is alleged by the
petitioner that instead of regularising his service against
the vacant post, he could not have been brought over to
Work-Charged Establishment even though it is admitted
position that he has been engaged and working prior to
13.04.1993.
Submissions of counsel for the petitioner:
3. With the aforesaid background facts, Sri Mihir Kanta
Rath, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
since the similarly situated DLR employees were brought
under the Regular Establishment in different divisions of
the Rural Works Department, merely because the
petitioner was transferred to other Division in the year
1991, he should not have been ignored from beingWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 8 of 75
brought over to the Regular Establishment as his
counterparts have been allowed to enjoy the benefit of
being retained.
3.1. It is submitted that the petitioner by virtue of Officer
Order vide Memo No.216, dated 18.02.2015 got retired
from Government service with effect from 28.02.2015
(Afternoon) on attaining the age of superannuation as
Worked-Charged employee of Rural Works Division,
Kendrapara.
3.2. The petitioner seeks issue of writ of mandamus to the
Authority concerned to bring him over to the Regular
Establishment prior to his retirement, as was done in
the case of similarly circumstanced employees, so that
he can be extended with the retiral benefits.
3.3. Sri Mihir Kanta Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed heavy reliance on the Judgment dated
02.09.2022 rendered by this Court in the case of
Debendranath Sahoo Vrs. State of Odisha and others,
WPC(OA) No.1791 of 2017, reported at (2022) III ILR-CUT
282.
4. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government
Advocate along with Sri Prem Kumar Mohanty, learned
Additional Standing Counsel referring to paragraph-7 of
the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties,
submitted that the initial date of engagement of the
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 9 of 75
petitioner has been accepted by the Authority (Executive
Engineer, Rural Works Division, Kendrapara) as
“01.07.1984” which was also accepted by the
Government (Opposite party No.1). On the basis of such
date of engagement, the service of the petitioner was
brought over to the Work-Charged Establishment with
effect from 25.02.2012 in order to comply with Order
dated 21.03.2011 passed by the learned Administrative
Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.814(C) of
2011.
4.1. Referring to paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, it is
submitted that as per the Policy decision of the
Government and upon issuance of Resolution by the
Finance Department on 15.05.1997, the opposite parties
to carry out the instructions, started to take stock of
NMR and DLR employees working under them. Since
there was ban order restricting engagement with effect
from 12.04.1993, it became necessary to ascertain the
exact date of engagement of each NMR/DLR employees.
Verification of records were conducted in different offices
to ascertain the actual date of engagement. Ascertaining
the actual date of engagement in order to determine the
inter se seniority, it consumed substantial period.
Ultimately, the list of identified DLR and NMR employees
was prepared and sent to the Government for obtaining
necessary concurrence and approval from the Finance
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 10 of 75
Department. In phased manner, the services of the
identified NMR and DLR employees were brought over to
the Work-Charged Establishment being regulated under
the Odisha Work Charged Employee (Appointment and
Condition of Service) Instruction, 1974 as amended from
time to time.
4.2. Relying on the date of transfer of the petitioner to be
placed under the control of Executive Engineer, Rural
Works Division, Kendrapara, the aforesaid date of
engagement has been accepted and service benefits as
admissible has been extended to the petitioner at par
with the DLR employees who were brought over to the
Work-Charged Establishment. The petitioner has not put
forth any singular instance to buttress his contention
that the employees joined as DLR prior to 12.04.1993
and subsequent to 01.07.1984 have been granted the
relief as claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition.
Therefore, the learned Additional Government Advocate
fervently prayed to reject the claim of the petitioner.
4.3. The learned Additional Standing Counsel placed reliance
on Annexure-A/3 which reveals as follows:
“Office of the Executive Engineer
Rural Works Division, Kendrapara
No.5521/dt. 19.7.2011
ToWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 11 of 75
The Chief Engineer
Rural Works-I(O),
BhubaneswarSub.: Regularization of Identified DLR in Work-Charged
Establishment engaged prior to 12.04.1993.
Ref.: Your Letter No.5204, dated 05.04.2011.
Sir,
In inviting a kind reference to the above noted
subject, I am to state that Sri Ananta Charan Bal (D
L R Watch Man) has been engaged prior to
12.4.1993 i.e. during 1984 as reported by Assistant
Engineer R.W. Sub-Division Aul. In absence of exact
date and month of joining as D L R may be treated
as 1.07.1984 in line with fixation of assumed date of
birth when year of birth is declared.
His seniority may please be fixed accordingly and he
may please be regularized in Work Charged
Establishment.
This is for favour of your kind information and
necessary action.”
4.4. It is, therefore, submitted that as no evidence is
available to ascertain the actual date of engagement as
claimed by the petitioner, the authority has accepted the
date of engagement as “01.07.1984” and accordingly, the
petitioner before his superannuation was brought over to
the Work-Charged Establishment.
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 12 of 75
4.5. Hence the learned Additional Government Advocate/
Additional Standing Counsel would submit that no
necessity arises in the present nature of case to show
indulgence.
Analysis and discussions:
5. Having glanced at the pleadings, the undisputed facts
emanated from material on record that the petitioner
joined as DLR Watchman prior to 12.04.1993 and the
date of engagement has been taken as “01.07.1984”. The
Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Kendrapara
vide Letter No.5521 dated 19.07.2011 (Annexure-A/3)
enclosed to the counter affidavit, reflected said date as
date of engagement which remained unrebutted, though
the petitioner claimed the said date to be treated as
“14.05.1984” in the petition.
5.1. As is revealed from the records that the petitioner while
working as Unskilled Watchman in the Work-Charged
Establishment, got retired with effect from 28.02.2015
on attaining the age of superannuation, thereby the fact
that he offered more than thirty years of continuous
service is not denied by the opposite parties.
6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the
petitioner highlighted that had the petitioner been
brought over to the Regular Establishment considering
the length of service rendered in the Department as DLR
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 13 of 75
employee, he could be extended the pensionary benefits.
This Court considered such plight in very many earlier
occasions with respect to similarly circumstanced
persons.
6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to coordinate
Bench Judgment dated 17.12.2021 rendered in the case
of Sadananda Setha Vrs. State of Odisha & others,
WPC(OAC) No.865 of 2018, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine
Ori 2111 to countenance his submission that in identical
factual matrix, this Court allowed the relief(s) akin to
that is claimed in the present case. This Court recorded
the following fact and conclusion in Sadananda Setha
(supra):
“3. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the Petitioner had
joined as „Khalalsi‟ on 1st March, 1989 under the
provision of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme (in
short „R.A.S.‟) under work charged establishment
instead of regular establishment. In course of his
employment, the Petitioner had submitted several
representations to the authorities to bring him over to
the regular establishment but the grievance of the
Petitioner remained unheard by the authorities till
the date of his retirement on 30th June, 2016. The
Petitioner has, therefore, stated that it is due to the
sheer negligence and latches on the part of the
authorities he was not given appointment in regular
establishment. Since at the time of retirement, the
service of the Petitioner was not regularized, he has
been denied pensionary and other retiral benefits byWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 14 of 75
his employer, which is illegal, arbitrary and
discriminatory.
***
9. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Opposite
Parties states that DOWR Resolution dated 7th
September, 1995 wherein it has been stipulated that
employees completing ten years in work charged
establishment are eligible to be brought over to the
regular establishment. …
***
14. The Petitioner‟s case is that although he was
appointed as R.A.S. on 1st March, 1989 i.e. much
prior to the cut off date fixed by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court of India i.e. 13th April, 1993, the Petitioner
should have been brought over to the regular
establishment before his retirement from service. The
State Government counter does not reveal as to
whether any scheme pursuant to the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India‟s direction was ever
prepared or not and if such a scheme was prepared
whether the list was prepared on the basis of
seniority of the work charged employees. In the
absence of any such information, this Court is
constrained to accept the fact that the State
Government has not acted in a manner as directed
by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India concerning
the work charged employees. Moreover, the
Petitioner was exploited by a model employer like
the State for several decades as a work charged
employee without giving him the service benefits of
the regular establishment.
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 15 of 75
15. Moreover, even accepting the argument for Opposite
Parties that the DOWR resolution dated 7th
September, 1995 provides that on completion of ten
years of service in work charged establishment, the
work charged is eligible to be brought over to regular
establishment. In the present case, the Petitioner
joined as „Khalalsi‟ on 1st March, 1989. It is not
known as to what prevented the authorities to bring
the Petitioner to regular establishment for such a
long time as such the same has caused injustice to
the Petitioner in the present case.
16. Since the Petitioner has retired from service on
attaining age of superannuation, the question of his
regularization against the regular post does not arise
for consideration in the present writ petition. It is a
case of pensionary benefits payable to the Petitioner
i.e. required to be considered in the present writ
petition. Since the benefits have been granted to
other similarly placed work charged employees by
notionally considering them as regular
establishment employee and as such the pensionary
benefits have been given to them, the same benefit
needs to be extended to the Petitioner for services
rendered by him under the State Government for
several decades continuously that too on payment of
a paltry amount every month. The whole objective of
the pension scheme is to support an employee and
his family after retirement which is in recognition of
his relentless service to the Govt. and such benefits
are provided under the Rules on humanitarian
considerations.”
6.2. In an identical case where the NMR employees were
brought over to the Work-Charged Establishment, this
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 16 of 75
Court in the Judgment dated 07.04.2022 rendered in
Ramesh Chandra Biswal & Others Vrs. State of Odisha &
Others, WPC (OAC) No. 1067 of 2018 analysed the
applicability of the Finance Department Resolution dated
15.05.1997 and held:
“13. Having examined the aforesaid resolution, this Court
finds that nowhere it mandates that the NMR/DLR/
Job Contract workers are to be first brought over to
the Work-Charged establishment before
regularization of their services. Such being the
position, it is not understood nor adequately clarified
by the opposite parties as to on what basis the
petitioners were brought over to the work-charged
establishment in the year 2009, which is after the
judgment passed in State of Karnataka and others
Vrs. Umadevi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806, even
though they had put in nearly three decades of
uninterrupted service and were, therefore, otherwise
eligible to be considered for absorption in the regular
establishment as per the ratio of Umadevi and even
as per the resolution dated 15.05.1997. Reference
has been made to the Resolution No.21828 dated
07.09.1995 of the Government in Water Resources
Department, enclosed as Annexure-C to the counter,
which provides for regularization of services of NMR
and Work-Charged employees but then, after coming
into force of the Finance Department Resolution
dated 15.05.1997, the same stood automatically
superseded. Therefore, reliance placed on the said
resolution to justify the action of the authorities in
bringing over the petitioners to the Work-ChargedWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 17 of 75
Establishment in the year 2009 is entirely fallacious
and untenable.
14. The Opposite Parties have also referred to the
Instructions 1974 to contend that the petitioners
having accepted and acquiesced to being brought
over to the work-charged establishment without any
challenge to their service conditions as provided in
the said instruction, cannot now seek a relief de hors
the provisions in Instructions 1974. This is a
fallacious argument inasmuch as when the
Constitution Bench of the highest Court of the land
has placed a definite obligation on the Government
(in Umadevi) to act in a particular manner in respect
of such category of employees and it has not done
so, how can it turn around to question the so-called
conduct of the employees by raising the plea of
acceptance and acquiescence? To reiterate, the Apex
Court in Umadevi as explained in State of Karnataka
Vrs. M.L. Kesari & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2587,
mandated that every department of the Government
should undertake a one-time exercise of verification
of such employees to consider if they are eligible to
be regularized, and if so, to regularize them. This
being the law of the land has to be followed in letter
and spirit by all concerned. The concerned
department in the instant case has however, acted
as per its own decision overlooking the mandate of
the Apex Court to simply bring the petitioners (and
similarly placed other employees) to the work-
charged establishment instead of undertaking the
exercise as mandated in Umadevi. The stand of the
opposite parties is therefore, untenable.
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 18 of 75
This Court is also unable to agree with the other
contention raised by the opposite parties that the
petitioners being governed by the Instructions 1974
cannot seek any relief de hors such instructions.
This is for the reason that undoubtedly Instructions
1974 are applicable to all Work-Charged employees
but the same does not speak of regularization of
such employees, but lays down their various service
conditions. As already stated, even apart from
Umadevi, the FD Resolution dated 15.05.1997 holds
the field in the matter of regularization of not only
NMF/DLR/Job Contract employees but also the
Work-Charged employees. Significantly, the opposite
parties have themselves stated so in their counter
affidavit under paragraph-9, the relevant portion of
which is extracted herein below:
„9. *** Moreover, it is humbly submitted that the
Finance Department in a subsequent resolution
dated 15.5.1997 on the scheme for absorption
of NMR/DLR/Job Contract Workers under
Regular establishment vide Annexure-B have in
supersession to all the orders/resolution/
notification etc. issued by various department
of Government for regularization of such
category of workers issued norms and
conditions for absorption in regular
establishment. The Para-8 of the said
resolution clearly states that while filling the
regular vacant posts preference shall be given
to Work-Charged Employees first. Where no
suitable Work-Charged employees are
available to man the post, preference shall be
given in the following order, i.e., NMR/
DLR/Job Contract Workers. Thus, there isWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 19 of 75
existing scheme for absorption in regular
establishment as Finance Department
Resolution dated 15.05.1997 vide Annexure-B
which supersedes all previous resolutions
including Finance Department Resolution dated
22.01.1965 dated 06.03.1990 issued in the
subject matter of absorption.***‟However, the provisions of the Resolution were
never applied in case of the petitioners.
15. It is also seen that the claim of regularization of the
petitioners is sought to be repelled by the opposite
parties by contending that they have made a
backdoor entry into Government service without
being sponsored by the employment exchange or
undergoing any recruitment procedure. In this
context, it is significant to refer to the averments
made under paragraph-6 of the writ petition to the
effect that the petitioners were duly appointed
against existing vacant posts in the regular
establishment. Such averment has not been
controverted in any manner in the counter affidavit.
Even assuming for a moment that the petitioners
were not validly engaged, the question is, how could
they be retained for such an inordinately long period
of time and secondly, how could a gradation list of
such employees be prepared and finalized and
thirdly, how could they be taken over to the work-
charged establishment? Of course, this court is
conscious of the proposition that mere continuance
for a long period per se does not confer any right on
the person concerned to claim regular appointment
de hors the Constitutional requirement, but then the
observations of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 20 of 75
under paragraph-53 thereof as referred to
hereinbefore, cannot also be overlooked. The long
and short of the issue at hand is, the petitioners
claim to have fulfilled the criteria laid down in
Umadevi and therefore, should at least have been
considered for regularization of their services within
six months of the passing of judgment in Umadevi.
16. From the facts narrated hereinbefore, it is apparent
that the petitioners, despite having put in merely
three decades of continuous service to the State
have been left in the lurch. Some of them have also
retired in the meantime. The fact that the petitioners
have continued for so long proves that there was
work for them. If such be the case then, taking work
from them for such a long period of time, but
depriving them from the wages and other benefits
payable/being paid to their counter-parts in the
regular establishment is nothing but exploitation of
the labour force by the Government, which is not
expected from it, as it is supposed to be a model
employer. The direction of the Constitution Bench in
Umadevi, as amplified in M.L. Kesari [AIR 2010 SC
2587] is clear and unambiguous and places an
obligation on the Government to regularize as one-
time measure, all eligible casual employees who
fulfill the criteria laid down therein within a period of
six months. Alas, sixteen long years have passed
since the date of judgment in Umadevi and yet there
are no materials to suggest that the case of the
petitioners was considered in pursuance of the ratio
of Umadevi. It would therefore, be in the fitness of
things to remit the matter to the opposite parties to
first take a decision with regard to regularization of
the services of the petitioners with due regard to all
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 21 of 75
relevant factors like availability of posts, seniority
etc.”
6.3. In Meera Piri Vrs. State of Orissa and Ors., 104 (2007)
CLT 445 = 2007 (II) OLR 533 = 2007 SCC OnLine Ori 166
in the context of NMR employees who have worked for
considerable length of time, it was observed as follows:
“12. Law is well settled that main concern of the Court in
the above situation is to see that the executive acts
fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees
consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India. It also means that the
State should not exploit its employees nor should it
seek to take advantage of the helplessness and
misery of either the unemployed persons or the
employees, as the case may be. Since the State is a
model employer it is for this reason equal pay must
be given for equal work which is indeed one of the
directive principles of the Constitution. The person
should not be kept in temporary or ad hoc status for
long time. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment
is continued for long the Court presumes that there
is need and warrant for a regular post and
accordingly directs regularization. If an ad hoc or
temporary employee is continued for a fairly long
spell, the authorities must consider his case for
regularization provided he is eligible and qualified
according to the rules and his service record is
satisfactory and his appointment does not run
counter to reservation policy of the State. The normal
rule of course is regular recruitment through the
prescribed agency but exigencies of administrationWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 22 of 75
may sometimes call for an ad hoc and temporary
appointment to be made.
13. The question of regularization in any service
including any Government service arises in two
contingencies.
Firstly, if on any available clear vacancies which are
of a long duration, appointments are made on ad hoc
basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority
and are continued from time to time and if it is found
that the incumbent concerned have continued to be
employed for a long period of time with or without
any artificial break and their services are otherwise
required by the institution which employs them, a
time may come in service career of such employees
who are continued on ad hoc basis for a given
substantial length of time to regularize them so that
the employee concerned can give their best by being
assured security of tenure. But this would require
one precondition that the initial entry of such
employee must be made against an available
sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and
regulations governing such entry.
The second type of situation in which the question of
regularization may arise would be when the initial
entry of the employee against an available vacancy
is found to have suffered from some flaws in the
procedural exercise though the person appointing is
competent to effect such initial recruitment and has
otherwise followed due procedure for such
recruitment. The Petitioner‟s case comes under first
category.”
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 23 of 75
6.4. In the case at hand, the opposite parties have not
disputed nor set forth in the counter denying the fact of
vacancy position as reflected in Letter vide Memo
No.1335, dated 21.03.1998 issued by the
Superintending Engineer, Central Circle, Rural Works
Department. It is manifest from the record that for more
than 30 years the model employer-State utilized the
service of the petitioner as Watchman.
6.5. In a case where an employee has served for 32 years in
the Work-Charged Establishment, this Court vide
Judgment dated 26.04.2022 in the case of Biswanath
Gouda Vrs. State of Odisha & Others, WPC(OA) No.2359
of 2013, observed the following with regard to
entitlements regarding service benefits:
“8. Reading the above this Court finds, one must have
completed five years of continuous service and there
was likelihood of continuance of him in future and
the post where the Petitioner is placed must be a
sanctioned and permanent in nature and in such
contingency, if considered suitable, one should be
absorbed in the corresponding post created in
regular establishment. The Opposite Parties though
took the plea that the Petitioner has served in
different projects, therefore, there is no application of
above condition, this Court, however, finds, it is the
State Government who had engaged the Petitioner
though in a different establishment, but in particular
scale of pay. The State utilized the services of the
Petitioner for long 32 years that too continuously forWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 24 of 75
more than three decades. Petitioner had no choice
but to continue under the Public Establishment. Not
only this establishment, but even considering the
length of services of the Petitioner imparted, position
of Law even after tempted to bring him to regular
establishment. It is too late for the State-Opposite
Parties to claim that since the Petitioner was
engaged allthrough in work-charged establishment,
he is not entitled to pension otherwise. This Court
here again also finds, at some point of time
considering the claim of the Petitioner, name of the
Petitioner name was already empaneled and
recommended to be brought into the regular
establishment and as has also been communicated
to the Petitioner vide Annexure-12 on 25.06.2010 i.e.
the date the Petitioner was still in service. The entire
gamut clearly establishes that there is exploitation of
services of the Petitioner by none else than the State-
Establishment. This person having continuously
served for 32 years, was entitled to several
promotions and while continuing as such, he was to
entitled to different scale of pay. It is unfair and
unbecoming on the part of the State to see that it‟s
employees after providing so much of service even
more than three decades of his career, does not get
any protection to survive for the rest part of his life
and there is clear obstruction by the State to see its
employee after putting up so much of service at least
to have a decent retired life. At a time when there is
a class of people at State level so also Central level
are entitled to pension even if they have not served
one elected term. This Court is of view that the State
has not performed its duty as a model employer.
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 25 of 75
9. Now coming to decide; upon superannuation
whether the Petitioner maintains a claim for being
considered for pension, this Court here finds, the
O.A. decided by the Tribunal bearing No.622 of 1999
in the case of Chaitanya Gouda & Ors. Vrs. State of
Orissa & Others, clearly involves a superannuated
person like that of the Petitioner. The Tribunal
deciding the above O.A. vide Annexure-13 has given
the following direction in paragraph No.5 therein:
„5. I accordingly direct that the applicants shall be
absorbed in any establishment posts from the
time they completed five years continuous
service till the date when they retired from
service for the purpose of pension and other
pensionary benefits. After such absorption,
their pension and other pensionary benefits
shall be computed on the basis of the notional
fixation of pay in the regular establishment by
adding annual increments which fell due and
also taking into account various revisions of
pay scales that were introduced. The process
shall be completed within three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Original Application is
allowed.‟
10. In a further development this Court finds, for the
order of the Tribunal hereinabove being challenged
before the High Court in O.J.C. No.12087 of 1999,
this Court by its Judgment dated 01.05.2001 had
ultimately passed the following in confirmation with
the order of the Tribunal:
„2. Having heard learned counsel, we find no
ground to interfere with the impugned order in
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 26 of 75
view of the fact that the matter in dispute
already stands concluded by two decisions of
this Court in State of Orissa & others Vrs.
Jhuma Parida & ors. (O.J.C. No.1162 of 1999,
decided on 10.05.2000) and State of Orissa
and others Vrs. Sudarsan Sahu and another
(O.J.C. No.11028 of 1999 decided on
25.11.1999) in which similar challenge to the
order of the Tribunal was made.
Admittedly opposite parties 1 to 5 rendered
their valuable services and considering this
and in the light of the decision of the Apex
Court in SLP No.11929-930 of 1998 the
impugned direction was issued. Hence, we are
of the view that no illegality has been
committed by the Tribunal in its order.
Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed.‟
11. This matter again visited the Hon‟ble apex Court and
the Hon‟ble apex Court in disposal of the SLP(C)
……/2003 CC 3196/2003 has come to dismiss the
SLP observing as follows: “It appears that some
officers of the State have formed the habit of not
filing the petition for special leave within a
reasonable time. There is a delay of 578 days in
filing the present petition for which no justifiable
reason is mentioned in the application for
condonation of delay. Hence this petition is
dismissed on the ground of delay with Rs.5,000/- as
costs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee.
12. This Court here finds, there has been compliance of
the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.622 of 1999 after
final disposal of the matter in Hon‟ble apex Court
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 27 of 75
and further there has also been compliance of
similar nature of relief involving similar issues
disposed of by the Tribunal in O.A. No.425 of 2011.
This Court again finds, there has been again
disposal of number of writ petitions by this Court
involving similar issue such as W.P.(C) No.19550 of
2011 and in one such writ petition while a Division
Bench of this Court taking note of similar
development through several writ petitions and also
taking note of development through disposal of Civil
Appeal No.10690 of 2017, finally directed the State
to comply the direction in favour of the Petitioner
within specific period. It is shocking to observe that
even after the State‟s endeavor in Hon‟ble apex
Court in similar matters, the State does not realize
the legal state of affairs in such matters and
compelling the persons to avail till a command is
given by the competent Court.”
6.6. This Court in Anadi Sunai Vrs. State of Odisha, WPC (OA)
No.302 of 2010 vide Order dated 18th February, 2022
observed as follows:
“5. It is contended that one Narusu Pradhan, a similar
circumstanced person like the petitioner had filed
O.A. No. 1189 (C) of 2006 praying for retrial benefits.
The Tribunal allowed the retiral pensionary benefits
in his favour vide order dated 11.06.2009, which
was challenged by the State before this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 5377 of 2010. This Court dismissed the
writ petition on 19.12.2011 and confirmed the order
passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter against the order
passed by this Court, the State has preferred SLP inWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 28 of 75
Civil Appeal No. 22498 of 2012, the same was also
dismissed on 07.01.2013.
6. In that view of the matter, the relief claimed by the
petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of the
Tribunal passed in the case of Narusu Pradhan,
which has been confirmed by this Court as well as
the apex Court. Thus the petitioner, having stood in
similar footing, is entitled to get the benefits which
have been extended to Narusu Pradhan and all the
differential benefits and consequential benefits, as
due and admissible to him, shall be granted to him
in accordance with law within a period of four
months from the date of communication of this
order.”
6.7. Holding that the petitioner-Watchman is treated to have
been regularized in service at least one day prior to his
superannuation notionally, this Court in the case of
Chandra Nandi Vrs. State of Odisha & Others, 2014 (I)
OLR 734 = 2014 SCC OnLine Ori 738 = 118 (2014) CLT
282, directed for calculation of entitlements including
pension and arrear pension. Said matter being carried to
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State
of Odisha Vrs. Chandra Nandi, (2019) 4 SCC 357, the
Order of this Court reported in 2014 (I) OLR 734 = 2014
SCC OnLine Ori 738 = 118 (2014) CLT 282 has been set
aside on the following ground:
“11. The order [Chandra Nandi Vrs. State of Orissa, 2014
SCC OnLine Ori 738 = 118 (2014) CLT 282]
impugned in this appeal suffers from the aforesaidWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 29 of 75
error, because the High Court while passing the
impugned order [Chandra Nandi Vrs. State of
Orissa, 2014 SCC OnLine Ori 738 = 118 (2014) CLT
282] had only issued the writ of mandamus by
giving direction to the State to give some reliefs to
the writ petitioner (respondent) without recording
any reason.
12. We are, therefore, of the view that such order is not
legally sustainable and hence deserves to be set
aside.”
This Court upon rehearing the matter on remand by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide (2019) 4 SCC 357 made the
following Order on 03.02.2021:
“7. The said writ application was disposed of on
06.05.2004.
In paragraph-4 of the said order, it has been
observed as follows:
„In respect of work charged establishment the
Government of Orissa vide Finance Department
Office Memorandum No.5483/F dated 6th March,
1990 decided that consequent upon absorption of
work charged employees in the corresponding post
created in regular establishment, the period of
service rendered by him in Work-Charged
Establishment, shall count towards pensionary
benefits under the Orissa Pension Rules, 1977
subject to the condition that the employees so
absorbed should have served continuously for a
minimum period of five years in the Work-Charged
establishment. This decision was not followed by theWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 30 of 75
subordinate authorities. Thus, the fate of the Work-
Charged employees who rendered a quite good
years of service remained in dark. ***‟Accordingly the said writ application was allowed
and direction was given to absorb the petitioner in
any establishment post from the time he completed
five years continuous service till the date he retired
from service and thereafter his pension and other
pensionary benefits shall be granted on the basis of
notional fixation of pay in regular establishment as
has been granted to the applicants in O.A. No. 622
of 1999 and other cases as reflected in the said
order of this Court. The order passed by this Court,
was confirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.
5575 of 2007 dated 22.07.2015.
8. Such was the issue in case of one Narusu Pradhan,
a work charged employee, wherein after the order
passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in S.L.P No.
22498 of 2012, the authorities passed an office
order on 08.05.2013 by creating supernumerary
post, regularized his service for the purpose of
sanctioning pension.
9. This Court had also occasion to deal with this issue
again in W.P.(C) No. 1534 of 2008, i.e. in the case of
State of Orissa and others Vrs. Jyostna Rani Patnaik
and others, wherein direction of the Tribunal to
regularize the service of the applicant‟s husband by
way of creating a supernumerary post, if necessary
from the time he had completed 5 years of service as
work-charged employee by bringing him over to
regular establishment was challenged before this
Court by the State authorities. The said case wasWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 31 of 75
disposed of vide judgment dated 19.12.2016,
affirming the view expressed by the Tribunal.
***
13. It was also brought to the notice of this Court about
the order dated 02.04.2018 passed in OJC No.
12017 of 2000, wherein it has been observed/
directed as follow:
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record, more particularly the order
impugned herein, it appears that the Government in
Finance Department vide resolution dated
22.01.1965 decided for absorption of such
employees to regular establishment after completion
of five years in the Work Charged Establishment.
Subsequently vide memorandum dated 06.03.1990,
Finance Department has also extended the
pensionary benefit to work charged employees.
Learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 2389 of 1997 vide
order dated 23.02.1999 has already disposed of a
case of similar nature. Even learned Tribunal has
gone on to adjudicate one dispute in O.A. No. 1819
of 1996 regarding extension of pensionary benefit to
such work charged employees, who have already
retired. The plea of Additional Government Advocate
to the effect that the opposite party could not have
been brought over to regular establishment, as there
was no vacancy, is not sustainable in law, as it has
already been held in a catena of decisions that even
if there is no clear vacancy, a work charged
employee can be brought over to regular
establishment for at least one day by creating a
supernumerary post to make him entitled for
pensionary benefit.
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 32 of 75
In view of the above, we modify the order of learned
Tribunal to the extent that the opposite party shall
be brought over to the regular establishment for at
least one day by creating a supernumerary post, if
necessary and accordingly, he shall be extended
with the pensionary benefit as would be admissible
to him. The entire exercise shall be completed within
a period of two months hence.
14. It was also contended that relying on such decision,
may other writ petitions, such as OJC No. 12017 of
2000 (decided on 16.04.2019), W.P.(C) No. 12017 of
2000 (decided on 16.04.2019) have also been
disposed of.
15. While dealing with the matter, this Court deprecates
the action of the State-opposite parties. The State-
opposite parties have not fair enough to comply the
directions given by the Hon‟ble Apex as indicated
above and has only dragging such employees into
multiple litigations. The State-authorities are also
misleading this Court as well the Hon‟ble Apex Court
on each and every occasions in case of such types of
work-charged employees, in spite of law settled in
this regard and as well as specific
circulars/resolutions/ orders have been passed by
the State Authorities in terms of the direction of this
Court.”
The said matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India again in SLP(C) No. 21180 of 2021 [State of
Odisha & Ors. Vrs. Chandra Nandi] by the State of
Odisha, which came to be disposed of on 06.05.2022
with the following order:
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 33 of 75
“1 In the facts and circumstances of the present case,
we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave
Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.
2 The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
3 However, the question of law is kept open to be
resolved in an appropriate case.
4 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”
6.8. It is held in Khoday Distilleries Limited Vrs. Sri
Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited,
(2019) 4 SCC 376, as follows:
“26. From a cumulative reading of the various judgments,
we sum up the legal position as under:
26.1. The conclusions rendered by the three Judge Bench
of this Court in Kunhayammed [Kunhayammed Vrs.
State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359] and summed up
in paragraph 44 are affirmed and reiterated.
26.2. We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases
as under:
„(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may
be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In
either case it does not attract the doctrine of
merger. An order refusing special leave to
appeal does not stand substituted in place of
the order under challenge. All that it means is
that the Court was not inclined to exercise its
discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.
(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a
speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusingWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 34 of 75
the grant of leave, then the order has two
implications. Firstly, the statement of law
contained in the order is a declaration of law
by the Supreme Court within the meaning of
Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other
than the declaration of law, whatever is stated
in the order are the findings recorded by the
Supreme Court which would bind the parties
thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority
in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way
of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being
the Apex Court of the country. But, this does
not amount to saying that the order of the
court, tribunal or authority below has stood
merged in the order of the Supreme Court
rejecting the special leave petition or that the
order of the Supreme Court is the only order
binding as res judicata in subsequent
proceedings between the parties.
(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and
appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has
been invoked the order passed in appeal would
attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be
of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.
(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a
petition seeking leave to appeal having been
converted into an appeal before the Supreme
Court the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain
a review petition is lost thereafter as provided
by sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC.‟***”
6.9. It may also be relevant to have regard to the following
principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Andhra PradeshWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 35 of 75
High Court at Hyderabad in the case of Koduru Venka
Reddy Vrs. The Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue
Divisional Officer, Kavali, 1983 SCC OnLine AP 232 =
(1994) 1 ALT 227 (DB) = (1988) 63 Comp Cas 376 =
(1987) 67 STC 424 = (1988) 170 ITR 15 = (1988) 72 FJR
166 with regard to binding effect of judgment of High
Court:
“3. We are of the view that when a judgment of the High
Court is the subject-matter of an appeal and the said
judgment is suspended, the only effect of such
suspension is that that judgment cannot be executed
or implemented. But so long as the Full Bench
judgment stands, the dicta laid down therein is
binding on all Courts including Single Judges and
Division Benches of this Court. The dicta laid down
therein cannot be ignored unless the Court after
hearing a particular case doubts the correctness of
the dicta and thinks it appropriate that it should be
reconsidered. ***”
6.10. Applicability of parity and consistency in approach has
been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in Radhasoami Satsang Vrs. CIT, (1992) 1 SCC 659. After
referring to said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vrs. Union of India, (2006)
3 SCC 1 = 2006 SCC OnLine SC 258 laid down as follows:
“20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res
judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax
for different assessment years because res judicata
applies to debar courts from entertaining issues on
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 36 of 75
the same cause of action whereas the cause of
action for each assessment year is distinct. The
courts will generally adopt an earlier pronouncement
of the law or a conclusion of fact unless there is a
new ground urged or a material change in the
factual position. The reason why the courts have
held parties to the opinion expressed in a decision in
one assessment year to the same opinion in a
subsequent year is not because of any principle of
res judicata but because of the theory of precedent
or the precedential value of the earlier
pronouncement. Where facts and law in a
subsequent assessment year are the same, no
authority whether quasi-judicial or judicial can
generally be permitted to take a different view. This
mandate is subject only to the usual gateways of
distinguishing the earlier decision or where the
earlier decision is per incuriam. However, these are
fetters only on a coordinate Bench which, failing the
possibility of availing of either of these gateways,
may yet differ with the view expressed and refer the
matter to a Bench of superior strength or in some
cases to a Bench of superior jurisdiction.”
6.11. Looking at the present matter in the above perspective, it
can be safely said that this Court has been consistently
taking view that long years of service rendered by lowly
paid employees like NMRs and DLRs are required to be
considered sympathetically for regularization and they
are entitled to pensionary and other retiral benefits. The
State has been accepting the view expressed by this
Court on earlier occasion in respect of many NMR/DLR
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 37 of 75
employees. On the same principle it is required to accept
the present matter in order to maintain consistency.
6.12. It may not be out of place to have regard to the fact as
submitted at the Bar that in the context of entitlement of
pension of a Watchman who was brought over to Work-
Charged Establishment this Court in Debendranath
Sahoo Vrs. State of Odisha and others, WPC(OA) No.1791
of 2017, reported at (2022) III ILR-CUT 282 directed the
authority concerned to consider extension of the benefit
of pension to such employee. It is conceded by counsel
appearing for both the sides that said judgment has not
been challenged before any higher forum. Thus this
Court finds force in the submission of Sri Mihir Kanta
Rath learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that
the relief granted in the said reported case can be
extended to the instant petitioner on the anvil of Article
14 of the Constitution of India.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
subsequent to State of Karnataka and others Vrs.
Umadevi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806, in many other
cases as detailed hereunder, the Courts have considered
regularization in service considering length period of
service rendered by Contractual/DLR/NMR employees.
Vide Judgment dated 18.08.2025 rendered in Sudhansu
Sekhar Dash Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.15128 of
2022, this Court referred to Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vrs.
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 38 of 75
State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238; Sunil Barik Vrs.
State of Odisha, 2021 (II) OLR 469; State of Jammu and
Kashmir Vrs. District Bar Association, Bandipora, (2017)
3 SCC 410; Suvendu Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha, 2015
SCC OnLine Ori 267; Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra Vrs.
State of Odisha, (2014) 4 SCC 583 = AIR 2014 SC 1716;
Subrata Narayan Das Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C)
No.18659 of 2016, vide Judgment dated 12.07.2022;
Union of India Vrs. Central Administrative Tribunal,
(2019) 4 SCC 290; Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vrs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91 = (2023) 3 SCC
639; Ranjeet Kumar Das Vrs. State of Odisha, 2018 (I)
ILR-CUT 695; Jaggo Vrs. Union of India, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826; Shripal Vrs. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 221; Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage
Board Vrs. Bijay Kumar Samal, W.A. No.857 of 2024 &
Batch, vide Judgment dated 30.07.2025; Rajendra Kumar
Nayak Vrs. Odisha Minining Corporation, 2017 (II) ILR-
CUT 912; Dr. Prasana Kumar Mishra Vrs. State of Odisha,
2016 (I) ILR-CUT 373; Ramesh Chandra Mohapatra Vrs.
State of Odisha, 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 2587, and directed
the authorities to consider the long period of service
rendered by the employees in order to regularize their
services.
7.1. By posing a question “Whether the action/inaction of the
respondent-State in not recognizing the appellants‟
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 39 of 75
continuous service for the purpose of regularization is
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India?” in Bhola Nath Vrs. State of Jharkhand, 2026
LiveLaw (SC) 95, it has been discussed as follows:
“11. At the outset, we find it necessary to express our
disapproval of the manner in which the High Court
has approached the present lis. The controversy
before the Court was not one of mere acquiescence
or implied waiver of rights. The High Court, in our
view, has proceeded on a mechanical application of
precedents without engaging with the core
constitutional issues involved, thereby reducing the
dispute to one of acceptance of contractual terms,
divorced from its larger constitutional context.
11.1. This Court has consistently held that the State,
being a model employer, is saddled with a
heightened obligation in the discharge of its
functions. A model employer is expected to act with
high probity, fairness and candour, and bears a
social responsibility to treat its employees in a
manner that preserves their dignity. The State
cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to
take advantage of their vulnerability, helplessness
or unequal bargaining position.
11.2. It therefore follows that the State is required to
exercise heightened caution in its role as an
employer, the constitutional mandate casting upon it
a strict obligation to act as a model employer, an
obligation from which no exception can be
countenanced.
***
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 40 of 75
13. Another facet requiring consideration in the case of
contractual employees, such as the present
appellants, is the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Where employees have continued to discharge their
duties on contractual posts for a considerable length
of time, as in the present case, it is but natural that
a legitimate expectation arises that the State would,
at some stage, recognize their long and continuous
service. It is in this belief, bolstered by repeated
extensions granted by the Executive, that such
employees continue in service and refrain from
seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding
the contractual nature of their engagement. At this
juncture, it is thus apposite to advert to the
principles governing the doctrine of legitimate
expectation as enunciated by this Court in Army
Welfare Education Society Vrs. Sunil Kumar Sharma,
(2024) 16 SCC 598 wherein it was held as follows:
„63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings
forth the following features regarding the
doctrine of legitimate expectation:
63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based on
a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or
anticipation;
63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise
either from an express or implied promise; or a
consistent past practice or custom followed by
an authority in its dealings;
63.5. Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the
realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate
action can be taken only when a public
authority breaches a promise or deviates fromWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 41 of 75
a consistent past practice, without any
reasonable basis.
64. The aforesaid features, although not
exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help us
in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of
legitimate expectation to the facts of the case at
hand. It is clear that legitimate expectation,
jurisprudentially, was a device created in order
to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State
action. It does not extend to and cannot govern
the operation of contracts between private
parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory
estoppel holds the field.‟It is, therefore, not difficult to comprehend the
expectation with which such contractual employees
continue in the service of the State. The repeated
conduct of the employer-State in expressing
confidence in their performance and consistently
granting monetary upgrades & tenure extensions
reasonably nurtures an expectation that their long
and continuous service would receive further
recognition.
13.1. Another Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka
Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 cautioned that the
doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot ordinarily
be extended to persons whose appointments are
temporary, casual or contractual in nature. The
relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows:
„47. When a person enters a temporary employment
or gets engagement as a contractual or casual
worker and the engagement is not based on a
proper selection as recognised by the relevantWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 42 of 75
rules or procedure, he is aware of the
consequences of the appointment being
temporary, casual or contractual in nature.
Such a person cannot invoke the theory of
legitimate expectation for being confirmed in
the post when an appointment to the post could
be made only by following a proper procedure
for selection and in cases concerned, in
consultation with the Public Service
Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate
expectation cannot be successfully advanced
by temporary, contractual or casual employees.
It cannot also be held that the State has held
out any promise while engaging these persons
either to continue them where they are or to
make them permanent. The State cannot
constitutionally make such a promise. It is also
obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to
seek a positive relief of being made permanent
in the post.‟However, this Court in Umadevi (supra) clarified that
the bar against invocation of the doctrine of
legitimate expectation applies only to those
temporary, contractual or casual employees whose
engagement was not preceded by a proper selection
process in accordance with the extant rules.
Consequently, where such engagement is made
after following a due and lawful selection procedure,
there is no absolute bar in law preventing such
employees from invoking the doctrine of legitimate
expectation.
***
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 43 of 75
13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had
engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned
posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the
end of the year 2022 that the respondents
communicated that no further extension of the
appellants‟ engagement was likely to be granted.
13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is not
only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear
derogation of the equality principles enshrined in
Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State
initially engaged the appellants in their youth to
discharge public duties and functions. Having
rendered long and dedicated service, the appellants
cannot now be left to fend for themselves,
particularly when the employment opportunities that
may have been available to them a decade ago are
no longer accessible owing to age constraints.
13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for the
respondent-State‟s decision to discontinue the
appellants after nearly ten years of continuous
service. We are conscious that the symbiotic-
relationship between the appellants and the
respondent-State was mutually beneficial, the State
derived the advantage of the appellants‟ experience
and institutional familiarity, while the appellants
remained in public service. In such circumstances,
any departure from a long-standing practice of
renewal, particularly one that frustrates the
legitimate expectation of the employees, ought to be
supported by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking
order.
13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and
reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 44 of 75
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 Vrs. Union of India, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826 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 Vrs. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
221 and Vinod Kumar Vrs. Union of India, (2024) 9
SCC 327 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
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 45 of 75
being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of
the prescribed conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh Vrs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1735, 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
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 46 of 75
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.”
7.2. This Court feels it apt to refer to the case of Amarkant
Rai Vrs. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 265. In this case
the appellant therein was temporarily appointed in Class
IV post of night guard by Principal of College who was
not competent authority to make such appointment. The
appellant served on said post for 29 years on daily wage
basis. The appointment of appellant was done out of
necessity and concern for college, and duly intimated to
the University in 1988. No issue was raised by the
University pertaining to appointment of appellant as
ultra vires the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Under
such premises, it was held that the appointment of
appellant cannot be termed as illegal but was only
irregular. It has further been observed in the said
reported case as follows:
“12. Applying the ratio of Umadevi‟s case, this Court in
Nihal Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of Punjab & Ors.,
(2013) 14 SCC 65 directed the absorption of the
Special Police Officers in the services of the State of
Punjab holding as under:
„35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the
need for creation of the posts is a relevantWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 47 of 75
factor with reference to which the executive
Government is required to take rational
decision based on relevant consideration. In
our opinion, when the facts such as the ones
obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that
there is need for the creation of posts, the
failure of the executive government to apply its
mind and take a decision to create posts or
stop extracting work from persons such as the
appellants herein for decades together itself
would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part
of the State.‟
13. In our view, the exception carved out in para 53 of
Umadevi is applicable to the facts of the present
case. There is no material placed on record by the
respondents that the appellant has been lacking any
qualification or bear any blemish record during his
employment for over two decades. It is pertinent to
note that services of similarly situated persons on
daily wages for regularization viz. one Yatindra
Kumar Mishra who was appointed on daily wages
on the post of Clerk was regularized w.e.f. 1987.
The appellant although initially working against
unsanctioned post, the appellant was working
continuously since 03.1.2002 against sanctioned
post. Since there is no material placed on record
regarding the details whether any other night guard
was appointed against the sanctioned post, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined
to award monetary benefits be paid from
01.01.2010.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
that the appellant has served the University for more
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 48 of 75
than 29 years on the post of night guard and that he
has served the College on daily wages, in the
interest of justice, the authorities are directed to
regularize the services of the appellant
retrospectively with effect from 03.01.2002 (the date
on which he joined the post as per the direction of
the Registrar).”
7.3. The present case apparently turns on better footing
inasmuch as the facts and circumstances discussed
above does not reveal nor can it be said that the
appointment of the petitioner was irregular much less
illegal. Pertinent feature in the present case akin to that
obtained in the case of Amarkant Rai (supra) is that
there is no material placed on record regarding the
details whether any other Watchman was appointed
against the sanctioned post, in the facts and
circumstances of the case. In the case at hand the
authority has utilized the service of the petitioner for
around 31 years since 1984. Furthermore, the name of
the petitioner found place at Serial No.1 against the post
“Watchman (Unskilled)” under “General Category” in the
“Detailed Seniority List of NMR/DLR Employees Working
under Rural Works Division, Kendrapara” (Annexure-4)
and his service has been reckoned with effect from
“01.07.1984 in line with fixation of assumed date of
birth when year of birth is declared”, being an engagee
prior to 12.04.1993 (Annexure-A/3 enclosed with
counter affidavit).
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 49 of 75
7.4. No reply or answer is placed nor is there any objection
set up on record by the opposite parties with respect to
discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner. It
is affirmed in said paragraph of the counter affidavit
that:
“That the petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ
application to declare the action of the opposite parties in
bringing over the petitioner to the work charged
establishment as per order dated 25.02.2012 under
Annexure-8 instead of regularising the services of the
petitioner in terms of Annexure-9 and the regularisation of
similarly situated DLRs working in different division of
Works Department as illegal. The petitioner has also
prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to regularise
the services of the petitioner in terms of Annexure-9 and
similar orders passed by different divisions coming under
Works Department i.e. from the year 1998 within a
stipulated period and to extend all service and financial
benefits on such regularisation of the petitioner from the
year 1998 till his retirement within a stipulated period.”
7.5. This Court finds only objection at paragraph 9 that “the
petitioner in compliance to the letter under Annexure-5
submitted his reply under Annexure-6, but he failed to
submit any conclusive/satisfactory proof with regard to
his actual date of engagement”. At paragraph 10 of the
counter affidavit the opposite parties simply rested
burden of proof on the employee by stating thus:
“*** the petitioner in spite of intimation and opportunity
failed to provide any records establishing the actual dateWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 50 of 75
of his engagement, the name of the petitioner was not
considered by the Government to bring his service under
the Work-Charged Establishment from 11.02.2011 though
other DLRs got the same benefit. Because of the direction
of the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.814(C) of 2011 filed by
the petitioner, the opposite party No.3 again reviewed the
matter and the petitioner was engaged. On such
verification/enquiry, the opposite party No.3 came to
know that the petitioner was engaged by ways of transfer
of his service from the Expressway Division, Kendrapara.
Taking into account such transfer of service, the initial
date of engagement of the petitioner was accepted and
recommended by the opposite party No.3 to the opposite
party No.2 to accept it to be with effect from 01.07.1984
as per report vide Letter under Annexure-A/3″.
7.6. This Court strongly disapproves such a stance taken by
the employer-opposite party No.3 (Executive Engineer,
Rural Works Division, Kendrapara. The authority
concerned could have easily verified and ascertained the
actual date of engagement by calling for record relating
to his engagement as DLR from the Office of Expressway
Division, Kendrapara within the same locality/area. The
model employer should have acted pragmatically and
instead of putting the blame on the employee, a
Watchman, being custodian of official records the
opposite parties should have taken much care to verify
relevant records maintained by them. On the one hand
the opposite parties admitted transfer of the petitioner to
Rural Works Division in the year 1991 and reckoned
01.07.1984 as the entry into service as DLR prior to
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 51 of 75
joining in the transferred place. There is no dispute that
his service was required to be regularized being engagee
prior to 12.04.1993. Because he was brought over to
Work-Charged Establishment by Letter in Memo No.331,
dated 25.02.2012 issued by the Executive Engineer,
Rural Works Division, Kendrapara, the petitioner is not
extended the pensionary benefit as he got retired on
attaining age of superannuation with effect from
28.02.2015.
7.7. This Court considered entitlement of Work-Charged
employee to pensionary benefit in the case of State of
Odisha Vrs. Jugal Kishore Sahoo, OJC No. 12017 of
2000, disposed of on 16.04.2019. This Court has been
pleased to confirm the Order passed by the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal by observing thus:
“2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners
Department have challenged the judgment/order
dated 11.05.2000, passed by the Orissa
Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in O.A.
No.2217 of 1999 under Annexure-1, directing the
opposite party No.2 therein to sanction the pension
and all pensionary benefits to which the applicant
opposite party No.1 is entitled to in terms of the
resolution of the Government within three month
from the date of receipt of order.
3. We have perused the impugned order in detail.
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 52 of 75
4. Considering the submissions made and keeping in
view the fact that the issue involved in the present
case is squarely covered by the order dated
02.04.2018, passed by this Court in OJC No.8149 of
2000, wherein the Work-Charged employee,
similarly situated to the present applicant-opposite
party No.1 in this case, was directed to be brought
over to the regular establishment for at least one day
by creating a supernumerary post, if necessary and
accordingly, he should be extended with the
pensionary benefit as would be admissible to him,
the applicant-opposite party No.1 shall be extended
the pensionary benefit as would be admissible to
him as per the law settled by this Court on the date
on which he attained superannuation. For ready
reference, the said order dated 02.04.2018 is
reproduced hereunder:
„This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the
State Government and its functionaries challenging
the legality, validity and correctness of O.J.C. No.
12017 of 2000 order dated 14.10.1999 passed by
the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
Bhubaneswar in O.A. NO.1920 of 1999. Fact in nut
shell giving rise to filing of the present writ petition is
that though the opposite party was initially
appointed on 01.02.1964 in the Work Charged
Establishment under Water Resources Department
and continued as such till his retirement on
31.03.1997, his services was not brought over to
regular establishment. It was his case before
learned Tribunal that pursuant to resolution of the
Finance Department dated 22.01.1965, after
completion of five years from the date of entry in the
Work-Charged Establishment he should have beenWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 53 of 75
regularized in service. Due to inaction of the
authorities, he has been deprived of his pensionary
benefits. Learned Additional Government Advocate
for the petitioners-State submits that though
Government in Finance Department vide resolution
dated 22.01.1965 decided for absorption of such
employees to regular establishment after completion
of five years in the Work-Charged Establishment, it
has no application to the case of the opposite party
as the job in which the opposite party was engaged
was not permanent in nature. Moreover, the opposite
party being a Work-Charged employee is governed
under Work-Charged Employee (Appointment and
Conditions of Service) Instruction, 1974, which only
provides gratuity to such employees. Having heard
learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
record, more particularly the order impugned herein,
it appears that the Government in Finance
Department vide resolution dated 22.01.1965
decided for absorption of such employees to regular
establishment after completion of five years in the
Work-Charged Establishment. Subsequently, vide
memorandum dated 06.03.1990, Finance
Department has also extended the pensionary
benefit to Work-Charged employees. Learned
Tribunal in O.A. No. 2389 of 1997 vide order dated
23.02.1999 has already disposed of a case of
similar nature. Even learned Tribunal has gone on to
adjudicate one dispute in O.A. No. 1819 of 1996
regarding extension of pensionary benefit to such
Work-Charged employees, who have already retired.
The plea of Additional Government Advocate to the
effect that the opposite party could not have been
brought over to regular establishment, as there was
no vacancy, is not sustainable in law, as it has
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 54 of 75
already been held in a catena of decisions that even
if there is no clear vacancy, a work charged
employee can be brought over to regular
establishment for at least one day by creating a
supernumerary post to make him entitled for
pensionary benefit. In view of the above, we modify
the order of learned Tribunal to the extent that
opposite party shall be brought over to the regular
establishment for at least one day by creating a
supernumerary post, if necessary and accordingly,
he shall be extended with the pensionary benefit as
would be admissible to him. The entire exercise shall
be completed within a period of two months hence.
With the aforesaid modification in the impugned
order, the writ petition is disposed of.‟
5. In view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition
in terms of the order quoted above. Accordingly, the
same is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
6. The arrears dues of the applicant will be cleared
within a period of four months from today and if it is
not done so, the applicant-opposite party No.1 will
be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum.”
7.8. In the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Chaitantya Gouda,
2001 SCC OnLine Ori 131, this Court came to observe as
follows in the case of Work-Charged employee who were
not extended the benefit of pensionary benefit:
“1. Opposite parties 1, 2 and 5 are working as work-
charged employees from the year 1969, 1964 and
1963 respectively, whereas opp. parties 3 and 4
retired as Work-Charged employees after having
worked from 1962 and 1965 respectively in the
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 55 of 75
establishment in question. No pensionary benefits
having been extended, they approached the Orissa
Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar by way of
Original Application No. 622 of 1999 for a direction
to the Respondents to grant them retirement and
other benefits by declaring them to be regular
employees.
2. By following decision in a batch of cases, the
Tribunal allowed the Original Application in the
following terms:
„I accordingly direct that the applicants shall be
absorbed in any establishment posts from the time
they completed five years continuous service till the
date when they retired from service. After such
absorption, their pension and other pensionary
benefits shall be computed on the basis of the
notional fixation of pay in the regular establishment
by adding annual increments which fell due and
also taking into account various revisions of pay
scales that were introduced. The process shall be
completed within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly the
Original Application is allowed.‟
3. Aggrieved therewith the State has preferred this writ
petition.
4. Having heard learned counsel, we find no ground to
interfere with the impugned order in view of the fact
that the matter in dispute already stand concluded
by two decisions of this Court in State of Orissa Vrs.
Juma Parida (O.J.C. No. 1162 of 1999, decided on
10.05.2000) and State of Orissa Vrs. Sudarsan
Sahu (O.J.C. No. 11028 of 1999 decided onWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 56 of 75
25.11.1999) in which similar challenge to the order
of the Tribunal was made.
5. Admittedly opp. parties 1 to 5 rendered their
valuable services and considering this and in the
light of the decision of the Apex Court in SLP No.
11929-930 of 1998 the impugned direction was
issued.
6. Hence we are of the view that no illegality has been
committed by the Tribunal in its order.
7. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed.
8. Application Dismissed.”
7.9. Regard may be had to the following view of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India expressed in the case of State of
Orissa and others Vrs. Brindaban Behera (Dead) By Lrs.
etc., Civil Appeal No.5575 of 2007, vide Order dated
22.07.2015:
“We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment and order dated 6.5.2005 passed by the High
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (Civil) No.8666
of 2004.
It appears that the respondent was appointed in the year
1963 as Motor Launch Driver under the work charged
establishment, and continuously worked for 34 years in
the work charged establishment. He retired after attaining
the age of 58 years in the year 1997.
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 57 of 75
As against the denial of payment of pension, the
respondent moved the High Court.
Considering the aforesaid finding, the High Court allowed
the Writ Petition and directed that the respondent is
entitled for pension.
In the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in this
appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.”
7.10. It may be pertinent to take note of a Division Bench
decision of this Court rendered in the case of Principal
Secretary to Government, Works Department, Government
of Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others Vrs. Ashok Kumar
Pattanayak and another, W.A. No.975 of 2025, reported
in 2026 SCC OnLine Ori 78. Repelling the contention of
the opponents that since persons in casual employment
or Work-Charged Establishment are not entitled to
pensionary benefits in terms of the Odisha Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1992 as the casual employment in
Work-Charged establishment is governed by Executive
Instruction of the Odisha Work-Charged Employee
(Appointment and Condition of Service) Instruction,
1974, it is held as follows:
“4.1. The first contention of learned AGA that the learned
Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition at
the admission stage without giving due opportunity
of participation by filing Counter, is difficult to
countenance. Firstly, no contention of the kind can
be taken without a specific averment to that effect.
What is averred in Ground (B) in the Memorandum of
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 58 of 75
Appeal does not satisfy this requirement, although
we cannot brand it as evasive. Secondly, all the
contentions urged before us in support of the Appeal
were urged before the learned Single Judge, who
treated them in his wisdom, although not to the
satisfaction of Appellants. It is not a case of denying
due opportunity of participation in the proceedings
before learned Single Judge. Therefore, the first
submission does not impress us.
4.2. The second submission that the provisions of Rule 3
read with Rule 18 of 1992 Rules, as amended in
2005, come in the way of pension being granted to
the Respondents, bit difficult to agree with. Such a
contention was taken up in Panigrahi supra and in
an avalanche of cases; the same came to be
negatived and resultantly terminal benefits like
pension came to be granted to all other similarly
circumstanced employees, as contended by Mr.
Mishra. Matter was carried further to the portals of
Apex Court and the challenge was laid to rest in SLP
(C) Diary No(s).50364 of 2023 disposed off on
02.01.2024, whereby imprimatur was accorded to
the Division Bench judgment. Therefore, the second
submission also falls to the ground.
4.3. There is also force in the submission of learned Sr.
Advocate Mr. Mishra that when the State has
already granted terminal benefits like pension, etc.
under the provisions of 1992 Rules post 2005
amendment, would carve out a class within the
class of pensioners, which falls foul of D.S. Nakara
Jurisprudence. It is not disputed before us by the
AGA that all other similarly circumstanced
employees, who had litigated before this Court
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 59 of 75
successfully, have been granted pensionary benefits
under the 1992 Rules, of course mutatis mutandis.
If that be so, what justification the State has to
adopt a step-motherly attitude for the poor
Respondents herein, remains un-understandable. In
C. Lalitha supra, Hon‟ble Supreme Court deprecated
the culpable conduct of State in driving a set of
employees to the avoidable legal battle, when other
similarly circumstanced set had emerged victorious
in the litigation.
4.4. It hardly needs to be stated that the State, being a
Model Employer, vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika
Vrs. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234, should have
on its own extended the benefits of decision in
Panigrahi supra. That course would have saved
public time of the Court and private time of the
litigants, when pendency of cases is mounting up.
This Court notes it with penury at heart that several
unworthy cases are filed before Writ Courts even
when debatable issues have already been laid to
rest at the level of Apex Court of the country. Which
section of the bureaucracy prompts filing of cases of
the kind, remains a riddle wrapped in enigma. Such
a tendency on the part of State and its
instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution
of India, needs to be checked and sooner it is done,
better it will be. Otherwise, the objects of
constitutionally ordained welfare State would be
defeated to the detriment of citizens.”
7.11. So far as discriminatory treatment is concerned, in
Ratnank Mishra Vrs. High Court of Judicature at
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 60 of 75
Allahabad, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1237 it has been held
that:
“29. High Courts, being Constitutional Courts entrusted
to uphold equality and fairness, are expected to
encompass such principles within their own
administrative functioning as well, and must
exemplify the standards of a model employer. Such
principles are at the risk of being undermined when
discriminatory treatment is meted out to employees
similarly situated within the same establishment.
Such actions pose grave threat to the sacrosanct
principles of non-arbitrariness and reasonableness
as enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
30. In light of the above discussion, we are of the
opinion that the Appellants have been caused grave
prejudice by the Respondents, in respect of rejection
of their representations for regularization, though
similarly placed employees have been granted the
same, without there being any reasonable
distinction between them.
31. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
Respondent also submitted that the post on which
the Appellants were appointed, i.e. „Routine Grade
Clerk‟, is now a dead cadre and it has merged with
the post of „Computer Assistants‟ as per the
Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions
of Service and Conduct) (Amendment) Rules, 2019
which requires computer qualifications and
knowledge, i.e. data entry, word processing, etc.,
therefore direction for regularization cannot be
issued. In our view, such argument is also not fairWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 61 of 75
and reasonable in particular, looking to the report of
the Committee, as a result of which, similarly
situated persons were granted the benefit of
regularization after one year from their date of their
initial appointment while also extending the benefit
of promotion. Once, as per the discussion made
hereinabove, it has been found that the distinction
drawn between Category A, B and C employees is
not based on any reasonable classification or
intelligible differentia, denial of similar relief to the
Appellants on the pretext of subsequent amendment
in the rules, is not acceptable.
32. It has also been argued by the Respondent that the
Division Bench judgment dated 20.09.2011 has
been effectively overruled by the judgment of the full
bench of the High Court in In Re: Regularization of
Class IV Employees of the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad, 2013:AHC:179951-FB. Without going
into the merits of this submission, there is no
gainsaying that the genesis of the discrimination
which has been meted out to the Appellants can be
traced back to the report of the Committee way back
in the year 2012. The artificial distinction drawn
between the Appellants and other similarly situated
employees is the discrimination which must be
weeded out in pursuit of justice. It has further been
informed that the services of the Appellants have
been dispensed with by the High Court with
immediate effect vide order dated 15.09.2015 of the
Registrar General, and for this reason also it has
been contended that they are not entitled for
regularization. In our considered opinion, once we
have taken a view that the judgment passed by the
High Court denying relief of regularization was notWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 62 of 75
in accordance with law, such a submission does not
hold water particularly in light of the manifest
discrimination which is palpably clear and evinced
from the record.
33. While we are cognizant of the fact that ordinarily
regularization is a matter best left to policy decisions
of the employer, and courts must exercise restraint
in issuing directions. However, the present case is
exceptional. The Appellants have rendered over a
decade of service. Numerous similarly placed
employees who were employed through same
channel of appointment have been regularized.
Therefore, with a view to render complete justice in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case, in our view, this is a fit case for exercising our
inherent powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India to issue final operative
directions.”
7.12. In Raman Kumar Vrs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1018 in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India the following observation is made:
“8. Indisputably, the appellants herein have completed
service of more than ten years. Even this Court in
the case of Ravi Verma Vrs. Union of India (Civil
Appeal No(s).2795-2796 of 2018) decided on
13.03.2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 3860] found that
the act of regularizing the services of some
employees and not regularizing the services of the
others is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 63 of 75
9. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India appearing on behalf of the
respondents, has vehemently opposed the petition.
She submits that since posts were not available,
and, thereafter, Group „D‟ posts have been
abolished, the appellants could not have been
regularized.
10. We are not inclined to accept the submission on
behalf of the respondents. When the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax has himself found that
65 persons were entitled to be regularized, the act of
regularizing the services of only 35 employees and
not regularizing the services of other employees,
including the appellants, is patently discriminatory
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.
11. In that view of the matter, we find that the High
Court was in error in not entertaining the contempt
petition. However, at this stage, relegating the
appellants again to the High Court would
unnecessarily cause delay in delivering justice to the
appellants.”
7.13. The following observation of this Court made in State of
Odisha Vrs. Arun Kumar Nath, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori
2696 is noteworthy:
“1. The respondents in the instant appeal have been
knocking the doors of the Court in pursuit of justice
founded upon the concept of equality and the
fraternity amongst the homogeneous class, yet their
claim for the right on equalities is a far cry. Some of
the similarly circumstanced persons, who hadWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 64 of 75
approached the Court flagging the identical and the
similar issues, received the just justice, yet the
respondents are thriving for an equality right and
equal treatment before the Court of law. It is no
gainsaying that the adherence of rule of equality in a
public employment is conceded as a basic feature of
our Constitution as the certainty is a virtue. The
primary object perceived by our forefathers while
giving the Constitution is to bring an equality
amongst the citizens of the country and equal
treatment in juxtaposition with the rule of law and in
this regard, the doctrine of equality is, in effect, the
heart and soul of the Constitution.
2. The adherence of the equality principles not only
helps the citizens to reach to a highest potential but
also inculcates the sense of justice at par with the
equally circumstanced persons. It is not an arid
principle finding a space in the Constitution but
erodes the differential treatment amongst the equals.
It is, thus, a necessary corollary to the concept of
rule of law envisioned by the framers of the law and
bringing the same in reality while occupying a space
in the Constitution.
3. Although the equality is the faith and the aspiration
of a citizenry in a democratic republic, yet its
applicability has to be ensured with great caution
and care, and not in an abstract manner. The
equality amongst the equals is the hallmark of the
doctrine of equality as unequals cannot be treated
equally in the garb of the equality principles.
4. The enlightening observation of Justice P.N.
Bhagwati in Pradeep Jain Vrs. Union of India, (1984)
3 SCC 654 can be aptly applied that “equality must
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 65 of 75
not remain mere idle incantation but it must become
a living reality for the large masses of people.” We
are conscious that the equality principles should not
be applied with the mathematical precision but on
practical inequalities permeating the sense of an
equal treatment vis-a-vis the rule of law, which is
paramount.
5. On the broader concept of equality as embraced in
the Constitution, let us examine the stand of the
State in denying the claim of the respondents in the
perspective of the fact that the persons standing on
the same pedestal having bestowed with the
regularization of their contractual services, whether
the relief can be extended to the present writ
petitioners/respondents.”
7.14. With the above perspicuity of legal contours as
discussed above through various judgments referred to
above, there cannot be gainsaying that the concept of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India would pervade to
support the cause of the “lamb” (DLR employee) and the
mighty model employer (lion) having exploited the
petitioner who worked as Watchman for around 31 years
since 1984 till his date of superannuation on 28.02.2015
cannot now shun its responsibility to provide social
security measure1. Though the petitioner was brought
1 Article 38 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:
“38. State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people.–
(1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and
protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social,
economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.
(2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income,
and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 66 of 75
over to the Work-Charged Establishment, before
28.02.2015 he should have been brought to the Regular
Establishment for the purpose of getting pensionary
benefit. Glossing through the decisions it is not inept to
say that on earlier occasions by dint of judgments/
orders, as referred to above, the State Government has
extended identical benefit to such DLR or NMR
employees by bringing them to Regular Establishment
notionally for the purpose grant of pensionary benefit.
Conclusion:
8. Before concluding, this Court may have regard to a view
expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India with
respect to grant of pension in favour of the employees
having rendered long years of service to the employer. In
State of Gujarat Vrs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 2004 it has been stated as follows:
“1. It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the
services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years
and thereafter now to contend that as the services
rendered by the respondent are ad hoc, he is not
entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State
cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own
wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30
years and thereafter to contend that an employee
who has rendered 30 years continues service shall
not be eligible for pension is nothing butopportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of
people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.”
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 67 of 75
unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such
ought not to have taken such a stand.
2. In the present case, the High Court has not
committed any error in directing the State to pay
pensionary benefits to the respondent who has
retired after rendering more than 30 years service.
3. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.”
9. This Court is not oblivious of the provisions contained in
Rule 18 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1992, which read as under:
“18. Conditions subject to which service qualifies.–
(1) Service does not qualify for pension unless it is
rendered in a pensionable establishment/post.
(2) The entire continuous temporary or officiating service
under Government without interruption in the same
post or any other post, shall count for the purpose of
pension in respect of all categories of Government
servants except in the following cases, namely:
(i) Period of service in a non-pensionable
establishment;
(ii) Period of service in the work-charged
establishment;
(iii) Period of service paid from contingencies;
(iv) Where the employee concerned resigns and is
not again appointed to service under
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 68 of 75
Government or is removed/dismissed from
public service;
(v) A probationer who is discharged from service
for failure to pass the prescribed test or
examination;
(vi) Re-employed .pensioner, Government servants
engaged on contract and Government servants
not in whole time employment of Government;
(vii) Service paid from Local Fund or Trust Fund;
(viii) Service in an office paid by fees whether levied
by law or under authority of the Government or
by Commission; and
(ix) Service paid out of the grant in accordance with
Law or Custom.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (i)
and (ii) of sub-rule (2) a person who is initially
appointed by the Government in a Work-Charged
Establishment for a period of five years or more and
is subsequently appointed to the same or another
post in a temporary or substantive capacity in a
pensionable establishment without interruption of
duty, the period of service so rendered in work-
charged establishment shall qualify for pension
under this rule.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1)
Government, may, by general or special order,
prescribe any class of service or post which were
previously born under Work-Charged establishment
or paid from contingencies to be pensionable.
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 69 of 75
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1)
and (2) in case of a Government servant belonging to
Government of India or other State Government on
his permanent transfer to the State Government the
continuous service rendered by him under
pensionable establishment of Government of India or
any other State Government, as the case may be,
shall count as qualifying service for pension.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i) &
(iii) of sub-rule (2), a person who is initially
appointed in a job contract establishment and is
subsequently brought over to the post created under
regular/pensionable establishment, so much of his
job contract service period shall be added to the
period of his qualifying service in regular
establishment and would render him eligible for
pensionary benefits.”
9.1. Though on the date of superannuation, i.e., the
petitioner, DLR employee since 1984 and a Work-
Charged employee discharging duty of Watchman since
1984, considering that he worked for the employer for
around 31 years uninterrupted service with a transfer to
another place in the year 1991, this Court is of the
considered opinion that such employee should have
been regularized in the post which is of perennial
nature. The observation of Division Bench of this Court
in Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vrs. Bijay
Kumar Samal, &c. W.A. No.857 of 2024 etc., vide
Judgment dated 30.07.2025 may be relevant:
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 70 of 75
“6.1. Appellant-Board is constituted under the provisions
of the Orissa Water Supply & Sewerage Board Act,
1991; the Board discharges public functions with
service rendered by Respondent-employees since a
quarter century or so, is not in dispute. It is obvious
that the work in question is perennial in nature and
that these poor employees have been accomplishing
the same with no complaint whatsoever. It is also
not in dispute that the Board, being the employer in
terms of Section 9 of the Act, has engaged the
services of these respondents, there being no regular
recruits, despite its recommendation to the State
Government on several occasions. This being the
position, the Appellant-Board, being an
instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India, has to conduct itself as a
Model Employer, vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika
Vrs. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234. It hardly
needs to be stated that there is Preambular
Socialistic Pattern prescribed by the Constitution
itself and therefore such an instrumentality cannot
take up a stand that runs contrary to the same,
apart from being bereft of elements of justice & fair
play. After all, a Statutory Body like the Appellant-
Board cannot run its ordained functions as East
India Company of bygone era.
6.2. The vehement submission of learned panel counsel
appearing for the Board that the very initial entry of
the respondents to the service is illegal and therefore
no regularization/absorption would have been
granted in terms of Umadevi supra cannot be
acceded to and reasons for this are many: Firstly,
Section 9(1) of the Act says “The Board may appoint
such officers and employees as it considersWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 71 of 75
necessary for the efficient performance of its duties
and discharge of its functions against posts
sanctioned by the State Government.” Secondly, it is
specifically admitted in the statement of objections
filed in the writ petitions that the Board has engaged
the services of these respondents. It is not the contra
case of the Board and it cannot be either, the battle
lines having been drawn up both the sides having
filed their pleadings. It need not be stated that an
admission in the pleadings is a substantive piece of
evidence, if not a sacrosanct one. Therefore, the ratio
in Umadei supra would not come to the aid of
Appellant-Board, initial entry being absolutely legal.
6.3. Illegality is one thing and irregularity is another,
even if arguably they are not polls asunder. At
times, the difference between these two, sages of
law like Fedric Pollock say, more often than not, is in
degrees & not in kind. In a constitutionally ordained
Welfare State its instrumentality like the Board
cannot be permitted to contend that although it made
the appointments in question, the same are marred
by illegality, especially when they are not, for the
reasons already discussed above. Here are
employees who have been shading their sweat, if
not blood, to the soil in the discharge of their
functions for more than twenty five years. Firstly, a
perpetrator of illegality, if at all these appointments
are of the kind, cannot be permitted to take the
advantage of its own illegal act. Secondly, whatever
arguable illegality at the entry level of employment
would diminish year by year and become nil at least
after a quarter century, as a concession to the
shortness of human life. One cannot dig the grave
profitably, the dead having gone with the winds longWPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 72 of 75
ago once for all. Therefore, the entry of these
respondents is at the most can be termed as
irregular and therefore Umadevi cannot be chanted
like mantra to defeat their legitimate expectation, if
not right.”
9.2. Regard being had to the views expressed by different
Courts qua the scope for regularization of the DLR/NMR
employees and the entitlement of such employees for
grant of pension albeit they were brought to the Work-
Charged Establishment, it would be unjustified if the
benefit of pension is not granted to the petitioner who
worked on the basis of Daily Labour Roll. The opposite
parties are required to bear in mind that the petitioner
has worked for the employer since 1984 and
subsequently was absorbed and brought over to the
Work-Charged Establishment by Office Order dated
25.02.2012 after having put in around 28 years of
service and allowed to be retired and be “relieved from
Government service” on attaining age of superannuation
on 28.02.2015 by Office Order dated 18.02.2015. As no
objection is raised from the side of the opposite parties
that Letter vide Memo No.1335, dated 21.03.1998 of the
Superintending Engineer, Central Circle, Rural Works,
Bhubaneswar (Annexure-9) reflects there were five
numbers of Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman post lying
vacant, and in this respect no plea is set up by the
opposite parties in their counter affidavit that they have
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 73 of 75
filled up such vacant posts by the time of consideration
the case of the petitioner for regularisation, there was
thus no impediment for them to bring the petitioner over
to the Regular/Pensionable Establishment rather than
the Work-Charged Establishment. In all fairness of the
things, it would be necessary to make observation that
the opposite parties are required to consider bringing the
petitioner to the Regular/Pensionable Establishment
notionally for such period as is necessary for qualifying
him to get the pension.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion on facts as well as in
law, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner
in the light of consistent view expressed by different
Courts in respect of similarly circumstanced employees
and, in consideration of the observation made above,
steps be taken to extend all the benefits and
consequential benefits, as due and admissible to him in
accordance with law.
10.1. Needless to say that the opposite parties shall act
pragmatically by extending the pensionary benefits
keeping in view the decisions referred to supra.
10.2. Entire exercise shall be taken up and concluded within a
period of three months from the date of the receipt of
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 74 of 75
copy of this Judgment or on production of certified copy
thereof by the petitioner, whichever is earlier.
11. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the
above observations and directions, but in the
circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. As a
result of disposal of the writ petition, all pending
Interlocutory Application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR
SETHY
Designation: Personal
Assistant (Secretary-in-charge)
Reason: Authentication High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Location: ORISSA HIGH The 07th March, 2026//Aswini/MRS/Bichi/Laxmikant
COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Mar-2026 15:43:21
WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 75 of 75
