Orissa High Court
Dhananjaya Behera vs State Of Odisha & Others on 7 July, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20479 of 2023
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
..................
Dhananjaya Behera .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:07.07.2026 and Date of Judgment:07.07.2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Heard Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel for the State.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer
// 2 //
“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly
prayed that the writ petition may be allowed;
(A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ
may be issued quashing the impugned order dated
12.06.2023 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary
to Government in Health and Family Welfare Department
under Annexure11 and necessary direction may be made
to the opposite parties to regularize the services of the
petitioner in terms of Rule 4(1) and Rule 5 of the Odisha
Pharmacist Service (Method of Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019 as he has rendered
more than 16 years of service keeping in view the
judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court
in WPC (OAC) No. 173. of 2013 under Annexure: 10,
within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court;
(B) And any other order / orders or direction /
directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to
the petitioner.”
3. It is contended that pursuant to the notice issued
on 11.04.2008 under Annexure-1, petitioner was
engaged as a Pharmacist with fixed monthly
remuneration of Rs.1500/- vide order dated
16.08.2008 under Annexure-4. Subsequently,
pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in a
batch of Original Applications, petitioner was appointed
as a contractual Pharmacist vide order dated
15.02.2011 of Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-10.
3.1. Such order of appointment appointing the
petitioner on contractual basis when was set aside by
the State-O.P. No.1 vide order dated 09.01.2013 under
Page 2 of 26
// 3 //
Annexure-11, the matter was carried to this Court in
W.P.C(OAC) No.173 of 2013. This Court vide judgment
dated 29.09.2022 though was not inclined to interfere
with the order dated 09.01.2013, but directed for
consideration of the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit
of regularisation in terms of the provisions contained
under Odisha Pharmacist Service (Method of
Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019.
3.2. However, such direction of this Court to consider
the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularisation
under the 2019 Rules was rejected vide the impugned
order dated 12.06.2023 under Annexure-13. But, it is
contended that because of the interim order passed by
this Court on 05.07.2023, petitioner is continuing as a
contractual Pharmacist as on date in terms of the order
issued on 15.02.2011 under Annexure-10.
3.3. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner is
continuing as a Pharmacist initially with fixed monthly
remuneration as per order dated 16.08.2008 and
subsequently on contractual basis as per order dated
Page 3 of 26
// 4 //
15.02.2011 under Annexure-10 and he is continuing
as such, on the face of the order passed by the Govt.-
O.P. No.1 on 09.01.2013 under Annexure-11, in view of
such long continuance of the petitioner, petitioner is
eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularisation
which has been illegally rejected vide the impugned
order dated 12.06.2023 under Annexure-13 of Opp.
Party No.1.
3.4. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance
was placed to the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors.,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs.
Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of
U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 and so
also decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola
Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026
INSC 99 as well as in the case of Sukhendu
Bhatacharjee & Ors. vs. the State of Assam & Ors.
reported in 2026 INSC 523.
Page 4 of 26
// 5 //
3.5. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Jaggo in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as
follows:-
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary
employment contracts, as exemplified in this case,
reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely
affects workers’ rights and job security. In the
private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to
an increase in precarious employment
arrangements, often characterized by lack of
benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such
practices have been criticized for exploiting workers
and undermining labour standards. Government
institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles
of fairness and justice, bear an even greater
responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment
practices. When public sector entities engage in
misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors
the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy
but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode
public trust in governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of
which India is a founding member, has consistently
advocated for employment stability and the fair
treatment of workers. The ILO’s Multinational
Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to
provide stable employment and to observe
obligations concerning employment stability and
social security. It emphasizes that enterprises
should assume a leading role in promoting
employment security, particularly in contexts where
job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term
unemployment.
24. The landmark judgement of the United State in
the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7
serves as a pertinent example from the private
sector, illustrating the consequences of
misclassifying employees to circumvent
providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified
certain workers as independent contractors, thereby
denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact,
common-law employees and were entitled to the
same benefits as regular employees. The Court
Page 5 of 26
// 6 //noted that large Corporations have increasingly
adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees
or independent contractors as a means of avoiding
payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing
their profits. This judgment underscores the
principle that the nature of the work performed,
rather than the label assigned to the worker, should
determine employment status and the
corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the
judiciary’s role in rectifying such misclassifications
and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary
employees, particularly in government institutions,
often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While
the foundational purpose of temporary contracts
may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have
increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-
term obligations owed to employees. These practices
manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is essential,
recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are
often labeled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when
their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security,
and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite
performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the
present case. This practice undermines the principles of
natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant
insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their
service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees
often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill
development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They
remain stagnant in their roles,
creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular
counterparts, despite their contributions being equally
significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one
set of exploited workers with another. This practice not onlyPage 6 of 26
// 7 //perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate
effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits
such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid
leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of
social security subjects them and their families to undue
hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or
unforeseen circumstances.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by example
in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers
on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when
their roles are integral to the organization’s functioning, not
only contravenes international labour standards but also
exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of
unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the
principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to
embody. This approach aligns with international standards
and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow,
thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour
practices in the country.”
3.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal in
Para-14, 15, 17 & 18(IV) has held as follows:-
“14. …… More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve
as a shield to justify exploitative engagements
persisting for years without the Employer undertaking
legitimate recruitment.
15. ……. Indian labour law strongly disfavors
perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature.
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx
17. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump
the legitimate rights of workmen who have served
continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended
period.
Page 7 of 26
// 8 //
18.(IV) The Respondent Employer is directed to
initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing
the Appellant Workmen within six months from the
date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that
they have performed perennial municipal duties akin
to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the
Employer shall not impose educational or procedural
criteria retroactively if such requirements were never
applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly
situated regular employees in the past. To the extent
that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are
required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all
necessary administrative processes to ensure these
longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on
daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable
norms.”
3.7. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of
Jaggo and Shripal, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Dharam Singh, in Paragraph-13, 14, 15 & 17, 18,
19 & 20 has held as follows:
“13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra)
and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a
convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and
to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work
is inherently perennial. The Commission’s further
contention that the appellants are not “full-time”
employees but continue only by virtue of interim
orders also does not advance their case. That interim
protection was granted precisely because of the long
history of engagement and the pendency of the
challenge to the State’s refusals. It neither creates
rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that
may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality
of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also
declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had
not specifically assailed the subsequent decision
dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that
the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999
refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh
decision during pendency, and the later rejection was
placed on record by the respondents. In such
circumstances, we believe that the High Court was
Page 8 of 26
// 9 //
obliged to examine the legality of the State’s stance in
refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon
reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the
matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of
the High Court compounded the error by affirming the
dismissal without engaging with the principal
challenge or the intervening material. The approach
of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a
mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy”
while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in
the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial
need and long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations,
the impugned order of the High Court cannot be
sustained. The State’s refusals dated 11.11.1999
and 25.11.2003,in so far as they concern the
Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of
Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial
ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable
and stand quashed.
xxx xxx xxx
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall
that the State (here referring to both the Union and
the State governments) is not a mere market
participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot
balance budgets on the backs of those who perform
the most basic and recurring public functions. Where
work recurs day after day and year after year, the
establishment must reflect that reality in its
sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The
long-term extraction of regular labour under
temporary labels corrodes confidence in public
administration and offends the promise of equal
protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place
in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides
fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on
lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-
hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The
State Departments must keep and produce accurate
establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing
arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence,
why they prefer precarious engagement over
sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If
“constraint” is invoked, the record should show what
alternatives were considered, why similarly placed
workers were treated differently, and how the chosen
course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human
consequences of prolonged insecurity is not
sentimentality. It is an institutional discipline that
Page 9 of 26
// 10 //
should inform every decision affecting those who
keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of
the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their
duties, and the material indicating vacancies and
comparator regularisations, we issue the following
directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary
posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with
effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High
Court directed a fresh recommendation by the
Commission and a fresh decision by the State on
sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose,
the State and the successor establishment (U.P.
Education Services Selection Commission) shall
create supernumerary posts in the corresponding
cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV
(Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any
caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each
appellant shall be placed at not less than the
minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with
protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the
appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent
increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For
seniority and promotion, service shall count from the
date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each
appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference
between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at
the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from
time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for
the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of
regularization /retirement/death, as the case may
be. Amounts already paid under previous interim
directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall
be released within three months and if in default, the
unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6%
per annum from the date of default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has
already retired shall be granted regularization with
effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of
superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause
(ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other
terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal
dues shall be paid within three months of this
Judgment.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No.
5 and any other appellant who has died during
pendency, his/her legal representatives on record
shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the
date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues
Page 10 of 26
// 11 //
recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three
months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education
Services Selection Commission or the prevalent
competent authority, shall file an affidavit of
compliance before this Court within four months of
this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions
comprehensively because, case after case, orders of
this Court in such matters have been met with fresh
technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and
administrative drift which further prolongs the
insecurity for those who have already laboured for
years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned
that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter
directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties,
fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance .As a
constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher
standard and therefore it must organise its perennial
workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for
lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions
in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations
is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious
method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity
for these workers. The operative scheme we have set
here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts,
full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and
a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a
pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes
and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and
transparency in administration are not matters of
grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of
the Constitution of India.”
3.8. It is contended that in the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath so cited
(supra), Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13.5 to 14 of the
judgment has held as follows:-
“13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious
and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily
discharged his duties over several years and has been
granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated
as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the
Page 11 of 26
// 12 //justification advanced by the respondents as the
obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to
fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether
their engagement is contractual or regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated
the practice adopted by States of engaging employees
under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or
“temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by
not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of
India, this Court underscored that government
departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and
stable employment, and evolved the test of examining
whether the duties performed by such temporary
employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of
the organization.
13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod Kumar v.
Union of India, this Court cautioned against a
mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to
deny regularization to temporary employees in the
absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi
(supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise
exploitative engagements continued for years without
undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further
clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between
appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely
“irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization
upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this Court
strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted
by States in their capacity as employers. The Court
criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing
recruitment as a means to evade regular employment
obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate
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
Page 12 of 26
// 13 //
contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the
appellants’ engagement denudes them of constitutional
protection. The State, having availed of the appellants’
services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant
to a due process of selection and having consistently
acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in
the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision,
abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge
behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is
manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of
the State to act as a model employer, and fails to
withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing
paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing
the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a
decade under the nomenclature of contractual
engagement and thereafter denying them consideration
for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing
engagement solely on the basis of contractual
nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or
passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for
regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees.
Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to
waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual
stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from
constitutional scrutiny.
IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on
contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi
(supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-
serving employees in a manner inconsistent with
fairness, dignity and constitutional governance.
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the
respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all
the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they
were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled
to all consequential service benefits accruing from the
date of this judgment.”
Page 13 of 26
// 14 //
3.9. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 73 to 79 of the
decision in the case of Sukhendu Bhatacharjee
has held as follows:-
73. As regards the contention of Shri Gupta that
after the decision in Umadevi (supra) no
regularization can be effected in respect of
employees who were not appointed against duly
sanctioned posts, we are unable to accept such a
sweeping proposition in the facts of the present
case. The submission proceeds on the premise that
Umadevi (supra) lays down an absolute and
inflexible embargo against all forms of
regularization irrespective of the surrounding
circumstances. Such an interpretation, in our
considered view, does not reflect the true scope
and ratio of the decision.
74. This Court in Jaggo (supra), deprecated the
tendency of the State to take mechanical shelter
under Umadevi (supra) to deny relief to employees
who had been performing work of a permanent
and essential nature for long years. This Court
observed as follows: –
“12. Despite being labelled as “part-time
workers,” the appellants performed these
essential tasks on a daily and continuous
basis over extensive periods, ranging from
over a decade to nearly two decades. Their
engagement was not sporadic or temporary
in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular,
and akin to the responsibilities typically
associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover,
the respondents did not engage any other
personnel for these tasks during the
appellants’ tenure, underscoring the
indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these
were not regular posts lacks merit, as the
nature of the work performed by the
appellants was perennial and fundamentalPage 14 of 26
// 15 //to the functioning of the offices. The recurring
nature of these duties necessitates their
classification as regular posts, irrespective of
how their initial engagements were labelled.
It is also noteworthy that subsequent
outsourcing of these same tasks to private
agencies after the appellants’ termination
demonstrates the inherent need for these
services. This act of outsourcing, which
effectively replaced one set of workers with
another, further underscores that the work in
question was neither temporary nor
occasional.
19. It is evident from the foregoing that the
appellants’ roles were not only essential but
also indistinguishable from those of regular
employees. Their sustained contributions
over extended periods, coupled with absence
of any adverse record, warrant equitable
treatment and regularization of their services.
Denial of this benefit, followed by their
arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest
injustice and must be rectified.
20. It is well established that the decision in
Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize
employees who have rendered long years of
service fulfilling ongoing and necessary
functions of the State or its instrumentalities.
The said judgment sought to prevent
backdoor entries and illegal appointments
that circumvent constitutional requirements.
However, where appointments were not
illegal but possibly “irregular,” and where
employees had served continuously against
the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a
considerable period, the need for a fair and
humane resolution becomes paramount.
Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished
service performing tasks inherently required
on a regular basis can, over the time,
transform what was initially ad-hoc or
temporary into a scenario demanding fair
regularization. In a recent judgment of this
Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, it
Page 15 of 26
// 16 //was held that held that procedural
formalities cannot be used to deny
regularization of service to an employee
whose appointment was termed “temporary”
but has performed the same duties as
performed by theregular employee over a
considerable period in the capacity of the
regular employee.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary
employment contracts, as exemplified in this
case, reflects a broader systemic issue that
adversely affects workers’ rights and job
security. In the private sector, the rise of the
gig economy has led to an increase in
precarious employment arrangements, often
characterized by lack of benefits, job
security, and fair treatment. Such practices
have been criticized for exploiting workers
and undermining labour standards.
Government institutions, entrusted with
upholding the principles of fairness and
justice, bear an even greater responsibility to
avoid such exploitative employment
practices. When public sector entities engage
in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only
mirrors the detrimental trends observed in
the gig economy but also sets a concerning
precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that
temporary employees, particularly in
government institutions, often face
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts
may have been to address short-term or
seasonal needs, they have increasingly
become a mechanism to evade long-term
obligations owed to employees. These
practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring,
and integral to the functioning of an
institution are often labeled as “temporary”
Page 16 of 26
// 17 //
or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror
those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and benefits that
regularemployees are entitled to, despite
performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary
employees are frequently dismissed without
cause or notice, as seen in the present case.
This practice undermines the principles of
natural justice and subjects workers to a
state of constant insecurity, regardless of the
quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded
from opportunities for skill development,
promotions, or incremental pay raises. They
remain stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and their
regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles
performed by temporary employees,
effectively replacing one set of exploited
workers with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also
demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass
the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and paid
leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security subjects
them and their families to undue hardship,
especially in cases of illness, retirement, or
unforeseen circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)
sought to curtail the practice of backdoor
entries and ensure appointments adhered to
Page 17 of 26
// 18 //
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that
its principles are often misinterpreted or
misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-
serving employees. This judgment aimed to
distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular”
appointments. It categorically held that
employees in irregular appointments, who
were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and
had served continuously for more than ten
years, should be considered for
regularization as a onetime measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment
is being subverted when institutions rely on
its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims
of employees, even in cases where their
appointments are not illegal, but merely lack
adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the
judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that
no vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the
judgment’s explicit acknowledgment of cases
where regularization is appropriate. This
selective application distorts the judgment’s
spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it
against employees who have rendered
indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our
opinion, it is imperative for government
departments to lead by example in providing
fair and stable employment. Engaging
workers on a temporary basis for extended
periods, especially when their roles are
integral to the organization’s functioning, not
only contravenes international labour
standards but also exposes the organization
to legal challenges and undermines employee
morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, government institutions can reduce
the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote
job security, and uphold theprinciples of
justice and fairness that they are meant to
embody. This approach aligns with
international standards and sets a positive
precedent for the private sector to follow,
Page 18 of 26
// 19 //
thereby contributing to the overall betterment
of labour practices in the country.”
75. Recently, this Court in Bhola Nath (supra)
while relying on the judgment of Jaggo (supra),
Shripal (supra), and Dharam Singh (supra)
observed as follows:-
“13.6. This Court has, on several occasions,
deprecated the practice adopted by States of
engaging employees under the nominal
labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or
“temporary” in perpetuity and thereby
exploiting them by not regularizing their
positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, this
Court underscored that government
departments must lead by example in
ensuring fair and stable employment, and
evolved the test of examining whether the
duties performed by such temporary
employees are integral to the day-to-day
functioning of the organization.
13.7 In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod
Kumar v. Union of India, this Court cautioned
against a mechanical and blind reliance on
Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to
temporary employees in the absence of
statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi
(supra) cannot be employed as a shield to
legitimise exploitative engagements
continued for years without undertaking
regular recruitment. The Court further
clarified that Umadevi itself draws
adistinction between appointments that are
“illegal” and those that are merely
“irregular”, the latter being amenable to
regularization upon fulfilment of the
prescribed conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this
Court strongly deprecated the culture of
“adhocism” adopted by States in their
capacity as employers. The Court criticised
the practice of outsourcing or informalizing
recruitment as a means to evade regular
Page 19 of 26
// 20 //
employment obligations, observing that such
measures perpetuate precarious working
conditions while circumventing fair and
lawful engagement practices.
13.9. The State must remain conscious that
part-time employees, such as the appellants,
constitute an integral part of the edifice upon
which the machinery of the State continues to
function. They are not merely ancillary to the
system, but form essential components
thereof. The equality mandate of our
Constitution, therefore, requires that their
service be reciprocated in a manner free from
arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the
State affecting the careers and livelihood of
such part-time and contractual employees
are guided by fairness and reason.”
76. What emerges from the principles enunciated
in the aforesaid decisions is that the State cannot
rely upon the mere form of engagement to deny
fair and equitable treatment to employees who
have served it for long years. The consistent
thread runningthrough these judgments is that
Umadevi (supra) cannot be invoked as a blanket
barrier to justify prolonged and continued
engagements of a temporary or ad hoc nature,
especially where the employees have been
discharging essential and recurring functions of
the State. The Court has repeatedly emphasised
that the distinction between “illegal” and
“irregular” appointments must be kept in view,
that long and continuous service is a relevant
consideration, and that the State, as a model
employer, is under a constitutional obligation to act
with fairness, consistency and reasonableness.
The practice of retaining employees for decades
under deceptively titled designations, while
simultaneously extracting regular work integral to
the administration, has been disapproved
consistently.
77. Applying these principles to the present case, it
is evident that engaging workers on muster rolls
was a consistently employed policy of the State
Page 20 of 26
// 21 //
which continued for prolonged period of time. The
appellants were not engaged for sporadic or
seasonal purposes but were taken on muster rolls
and have rendered continuous service for decades
in departments performing regular governmental
functions. The State itself acknowledged the
magnitude of the issue and framed a Cabinet
policy to regularize similarly situated workers,
acting upon it in respect of nearly 30,000
employees. In such circumstances, to deny
consideration to the fraction of remaining eligible
workers including the appellants, by taking shelter
under a rigid reading of Umadevi (supra) would
defeat the very principles of fairness and non-
arbitrariness that this Court has consistently
upheld.
78. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to
accept the contention of the State that the
appellants cannot be granted regularization on the
ground that they were not initially appointed
against duly sanctioned posts. The State, having
engaged the appellants prior to 1st April, 1993,
utilised their services continuously for decades,
and having itself framed and implemented a
Cabinet policy regularizing nearly 30,000 similarly
situated workers, cannot now exclude the
appellants by taking shelter behind a rigid or
technical reading of Umadevi (supra). In absence
of any cogent distinction or reasoned decision
justifying such exclusion, the action of the State is
manifestly arbitrary. It is inconsistent with its
obligation to function as a model employer and
does not withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
79. In view of the discussion made hereinabove,
the impugned judgment dated 8th June, 2017
passed by the Division Bench cannot be sustained
and is set aside and the judgment of the learned
Single Judge dated 20th December, 2013 is
affirmed. Consequently, we pass the following
directions:-
I. The appellants shall be treated as
regularised in service in terms of the Cabinet
Page 21 of 26
// 22 //decision dated 22nd July, 2005 and from the
date on which similarly placed 30,000
employees were given benefit of the said
Cabinet decision.
II. The State of Assam shall identify and
verify the eligible appellants and, where
necessary, create supernumerary posts to
facilitate their regularization.
III. Upon regularization, the appellants shall
be entitled to all consequential benefits,
including fixation of pay in the regular scale,
continuity of service, and all applicable
pensionary and postretiral benefits in the
same terms, as wereextended to similarly
situated 30,000 employees.
IV. In case of retired appellants, they shall be
granted notional regularization with
consequential monetary benefits and arrears
from the relevant date until their
superannuation for the purpose of
recalculating pension, gratuity, and terminal
dues.
V. In case of deceased appellants, arrears
and other benefits shall be released to their
legal heirs in accordance with law.
VI. The entire exercise, including the
calculation and payment of all financial
arrears, shall be completed within a period of
one year from the date of this judgment.
VII. We make it clear that the benefit of the
above directions shall only be applicable to
the appellants who were working in the
departments of the State before the cut-off
date prescribed in Cabinet decision dated
22nd July, 2005 i.e. before 1st April, 1993.”
4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel basing on the
materials available on record, contended that since
Page 22 of 26
// 23 //petitioner’s initial engagement is under RKS and he
was relegated to the same post vide order dated
09.01.2013 under Annexure-11 and the said order was
not interfered with by this Court in W.P.C(OAC) NO.173
of 2013, petitioner being an employee under RKS which
is a society under the Societies Registration Act, is not
eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularisation.
4.1. It is also contended that petitioner’s claim is also
not covered under the provisions contained under 2019
Rules as pursuant to the order passed by this Court in
W.P.C(OAC) No.173 of 2013, petitioner was found not
eligible under the aforesaid Rules. It is accordingly
contended that since petitioner’s very initial
engagement is under RKS which is a Society and he is
continuing as a contractual Pharmacist because of the
interim order passed by this Court, petitioner is not
eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularisation,
which has been rightly rejected vide the impugned
order dated 12.06.2023 under Annexure-13.
Page 23 of 26
// 24 //
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, it is found that
pursuant to the notice issued on 11.04.2008 under
Annexure-1, petitioner was engaged as a Pharmacist
with fixed monthly remuneration vide order dated
16.08.2008 under Annexure-4. While so continuing
and pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in a
batch of original applications, petitioner was appointed
as a contractual Pharmacist vide order dated
15.02.2011 under Annexure-10 so issued by the Opp.
Party No.3.
5.1. The said order passed by Opp. Party No.3 on
15.02.2011, when was set aside by the State-O.P. No.1
vide order dated 09.01.2013, challenging the same,
petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.C(OAC)
No.173 of 2013. Even though this Court did not
interfere with the order dated 09.01.2013, but while
disposing the matter vide judgment dated 29.09.2022
under Annexure-12, directed Opp. Party No.1 to take a
decision with regard to regularisation of the petitioner
Page 24 of 26
// 25 //
in terms of the provisions contained under the 2019
Rules.
5.2. However, such claim of the petitioner has been
rejected vide the impugned order dated 12.06.2023
under Annexure-13. Since it is not disputed that
petitioner is continuing as a Pharmacist with monthly
remuneration and subsequently on contractual basis
w.e.f. 16.08.2008 to till date, in view of the decisions of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo, Shripal,
Dharam Singh, Bhola Nath and Sukhendhu
Bhatacharjee so cited (supra), it is the view of this
Court that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to get
the benefit of regularisation.
5.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while
quashing the impugned order dated 12.06.2023 under
Annexure-13, so passed by O.P. No.1, directs Opp.
Party No.1 to pass an appropriate order regularizing
the services of the petitioner as against the post of
Pharmacist as against any available vacancy. This
Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to complete the entire
Page 25 of 26
// 26 //
exercise within a period of 3(three) months from the
date of receipt of this order.
Till a decision is taken as directed, no coercive
action be taken against the petitioner.
6. The Writ Petition stands dispose of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 7th July, 2026/Basudev
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Jul-2026 16:43:38
Page 26 of 26
