Orissa High Court
Dillip Kumar Samal vs State Of Odisha & Others …. Opposite … on 24 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.29481 of 2023
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
..................
Dillip Kumar Samal .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Mallik, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:24.02.2026 and Date of Judgment:24.02.2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate for the State.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging rejection of the petitioner’s claim to get the
benefit of regularization so passed by Opp. Party No.1
vide his order dated 05.08.2023 under Annexure-9.
// 2 //
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
petitioner was appointed as an adhoc Typist in the
establishment of Opp. Party No.2 vide order of
appointment issued on 23.03.1991 under Annexure-1.
It is contended that petitioner was so appointed on
adhoc basis against a regular vacant post and basing
on such order, he was allowed to continue without any
break in engagement.
3.1. Subsequently, vide office order dated 11.08.1995
under Annexure-3, petitioner was allowed to continue
against the existing vacancy on 89 days basis with
regular scale of pay along with D.A. and other
allowances as sanctioned by the Govt. from time to
time.
3.2. It is contended that on the face of such
continuance on adhoc basis w.e.f. 23.03.1991,
petitioner when was not regularized in his services, he
approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2167(C) of
1995. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.02.2013 under
Annexure-7 passed the following order:-
Page 2 of 17
// 3 //
“Considering the submission made by Sri Samal/the
applicant in person so also after going through the contents
of the O.A., in my considered view, even though the
applicant is continuing as on date by virtue of an interim
protection extended by this Tribunal, when cannot claim
any edge over others who may apply for the post in case
any advertisement is issued inviting applications for such
post. Since the applicant was appointed on ad hoc basis
for a particular period and allowed to continue in the post
with certain terms till now by virtue of the order of this
Tribunal, no direction can be issued to the respondent
authorities to regularize the service of the applicant. As
such the relief as has been sought for by the applicant in
this O.A. cannot be entertained.
However, the respondent authorities are directed to
conduct regular selection test, by way of inviting
applications from the open along with other eligible
candidates, subject to fulfilling the terms and conditions of
the advertisement except the age criteria and if the
applicant being overaged submits his application pursuant
to such an advertisement, his application shall be accepted
applying age relaxation clause, taking into account the
number of years he has rendered his services and in case
the applicant comes within the zone of consideration, on
applying age relaxation clause as per Rules and found
suitable for the post in the selection test, regular
appointment order be issued in favour of him. Till then he
will continue as before. The respondent. authorities are
directed to take earlier steps for filling up the posts on
regular basis preferably within a period of six months from
the date of communication of this order.
It may not be out of place to mention here that as
because the applicant is continuing in the post, because of
the interim order of this Tribunal, he shall not be entitled to
claim any other benefit in the selection test, except the
benefit of age relaxation as per Rules.”
3.3. It is contended that pursuant to such order
passed by the Tribunal, no regular selection process
was ever undertaken by the State in filling up the post.
Not only that challenge made to the said order by the
present petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.1477
of 2015 was also not entertained. It is contended that
Page 3 of 17
// 4 //
since no step was taken to fill up the post on regular
basis in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal
under Annexure-7 and petitioner was allowed to
continue on 89 days basis in terms of order dated
01.08.1995 under Annexure-3, petitioner once again
made a claim to get the benefit of regularization.
3.4. As such claim of the petitioner was not
considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.6994 of 2022. This Court vide order dated
11.04.2022, when directed for consideration of the
petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected vide the
impugned order dated 05.08.2023 under Annexure-9.
3.5. Challenging such order and by the time the
present Writ Petition was filed before this Court,
petitioner had already attained the age of
superannuation, having been retired from Govt.
service, on 30.06.2023 so reflected in Annexure-11.
3.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
since petitioner w.e.f. 23.03.1991 till 30.06.2023,
continued on adhoc basis against a vacant regular post
Page 4 of 17
// 5 //
of Typist in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3,
petitioner’s claim pursuant to the earlier order passed
by this Court on 11.04.2022 in W.P.(C) No.6994 of
2022, could not have been rejected on the ground
indicated in the said order.
3.7. It is further contended that since pursuant to the
order passed by the Tribunal on 18.02.2013 under
Annexure-7, no step was ever taken by the State to fill
up the post on regular basis by following due
procedure of law and petitioner was allowed to continue
on adhoc basis all through, petitioner should have been
regularized as against the said vacant regular post of
Typist, prior to his retirement. But because of in-action
of the Opp. Parties, petitioner was deprived to get the
benefit of regularization prior to his retirement on
30.06.2023 under Annexure-11 and consequential
release of all retirement benefits as due and admissible
under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.
3.8. It is further contended that in Para-11 of the
counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Parties, it has been
Page 5 of 17
// 6 //
clearly admitted that petitioner continued against a
regular post. Extract of Para-11 reads as follows:-
“11. That, in reply to the averments made in
Paragraph-8 of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that
Upper Indravati Hydro Electric Project, Khatiguda was
taken over by OHPC Ltd., Bhubaneswar under Odisha
Electricity Reforms Act. Like other employees of the
State Government, the services of the petitioner was
also placed at the disposal of the Corporation. The
Engineer-in-Chief & Director Civil, OHPC Ltd.,
Bhubaneswar vide letter No.708/WE, dtd.16.11.1998
(Annexure-E/3) directed the Chief Construction Engineer
Civil, Upper Indravati Hydro Electric Project, Khatiguda
to allowhim certain benefits besides opening his Service
Book just to keep his Service Records. Hence, the then
Administrative Officer of the Project opened his Service
Book as a Record Book, not in the aim of regularizing
his service in the Regular Establishment. The initial
engagement of the Petitioner was in the regular
establishment and not against any Job Contract
Establishment or Work Charged Establishment.
As regard his enrolment as a member of GPF, it is
humbly submitted that the petitioner applied to the
authority to permit him to contribute to GPF.
Accordingly, clarification was sought for from the
Government vide letter No.CAMP/BBSR/29,
dtd.27.01.1999 as to whether he is entitled to contribute
to GPF. The Government of Odisha in the Department of
Finance vide letter No.11197, dtd.20.03.1994
(Annexure-F/3) clarified that Adhoc employees on
completion of one year of continuous service can
contribute to GPF. He was therefore allowed to
contribute to GPF. Mere opening of Service Book or
contributing to GPF does not confer him the right to be
absorbed as a Regular Government employee.”
3.9. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for
the petitioner contended that in view of such long
continuance w.e.f. 23.03.1991 to 30.06.2023 on adhoc
basis and the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors.,
Page 6 of 17
// 7 //
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 so
followed in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of
Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99, petitioner is
entitled to get the benefit of regularization and he be
treated as a regular employee as on the date of his
retirement on 30.06.2023 with extension of all service
and financial benefits under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992.
3.10. 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.
Page 7 of 17
// 8 //
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also
declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had
not specifically assailed the subsequent decision
dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that
the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999
refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh
decision during pendency, and the later rejection was
placed on record by the respondents. In such
circumstances, we believe that the High Court was
obliged to examine the legality of the State’s stance in
refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon
reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the
matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of
the High Court compounded the error by affirming the
dismissal without engaging with the principal
challenge or the intervening material. The approach
of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a
mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy”
while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in
the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial
need and long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations,
the impugned order of the High Court cannot be
sustained. The State’s refusals dated 11.11.1999
and 25.11.2003,in so far as they concern the
Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of
Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial
ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable
and stand quashed.
xxx xxx xxx
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall
that the State (here referring to both the Union and
the State governments) is not a mere market
participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot
balance budgets on the backs of those who perform
the most basic and recurring public functions. Where
work recurs day after day and year after year, the
establishment must reflect that reality in its
sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The
long-term extraction of regular labour under
temporary labels corrodes confidence in public
administration and offends the promise of equal
protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place
in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides
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,
Page 8 of 17
// 9 //
why they prefer precarious engagement over
sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If
“constraint” is invoked, the record should show what
alternatives were considered, why similarly placed
workers were treated differently, and how the chosen
course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human
consequences of prolonged insecurity is not
sentimentality. It is an institutional discipline that
should inform every decision affecting those who
keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of
the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their
duties, and the material indicating vacancies and
comparator regularisations, we issue the following
directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary
posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with
effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High
Court directed a fresh recommendation by the
Commission and a fresh decision by the State on
sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose,
the State and the successor establishment (U.P.
Education Services Selection Commission) shall
create supernumerary posts in the corresponding
cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV
(Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any
caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each
appellant shall be placed at not less than the
minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with
protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the
appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent
increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For
seniority and promotion, service shall count from the
date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each
appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference
between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at
the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from
time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for
the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of
regularization /retirement/death, as the case may
be. Amounts already paid under previous interim
directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall
be released within three months and if in default, 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
Page 9 of 17
// 10 //terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal
dues shall be paid within three months of this
Judgment.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No.
5 and any other appellant who has died during
pendency, his/her legal representatives on record
shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the
date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues
recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three
months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar
Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education
Services Selection Commission or the prevalent
competent authority, shall file an affidavit of
compliance before this Court within four months of
this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions
comprehensively because, case after case, orders of
this Court in such matters have been met with fresh
technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and
administrative drift which further prolongs the
insecurity for those who have already laboured for
years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned
that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter
directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties,
fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance .As a
constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher
standard and therefore it must organise its perennial
workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for
lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions
in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations
is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious
method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity
for these workers. The operative scheme we have set
here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts,
full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and
a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a
pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes
and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and
transparency in administration are not matters of
grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of
the Constitution of India.”
3.11. It is contended that in the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath so cited
Page 10 of 17
// 11 //
(supra), Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13.5 to 14 of the
judgment has held as follows:-
“13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious
and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily
discharged his duties over several years and has been
granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated
as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the
justification advanced by the respondents as the
obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to
fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether
their engagement is contractual or regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated
the practice adopted by States of engaging employees
under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or
“temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by
not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of
India, this Court underscored that government
departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and
stable employment, and evolved the test of examining
whether the duties performed by such temporary
employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of
the organization.
13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod Kumar v.
Union of India, this Court cautioned against a
mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to
deny regularization to temporary employees in the
absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi
(supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise
exploitative engagements continued for years without
undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further
clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between
appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely
“irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization
upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this Court
strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted
by States in their capacity as employers. The Court
criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing
recruitment as a means to evade regular employment
obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate
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
Page 11 of 17
// 12 //
continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the
system, but form essential components thereof. The
equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires
that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from
arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State
affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and
contractual employees are guided by fairness and
reason.
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to
persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State’s
contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the
appellants’ engagement denudes them of constitutional
protection. The State, having availed of the appellants’
services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant
to a due process of selection and having consistently
acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in
the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision,
abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge
behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is
manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of
the State to act as a model employer, and fails to
withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing
paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing
the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a
decade under the nomenclature of contractual
engagement and thereafter denying them consideration
for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing
engagement solely on the basis of contractual
nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or
passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for
regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees.
Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to
waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual
stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from
constitutional scrutiny.
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.
Page 12 of 17
// 13 //
V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the
respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all
the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they
were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled
to all consequential service benefits accruing from the
date of this judgment.”
4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
while supporting the impugned order, made his
submission contending inter alia that since petitioner
all through continued on adhoc basis from the date of
his appointment till he retired on 30.06.2023 and in
the meantime he has already retired on 30.06.2023,
petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit
of regularization.
4.1. It is also contended that because of the interim
order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.2167(C) of
1995, petitioner was allowed to continue and
accordingly petitioner is not covered by the decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State
of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3). Stand taken in Para-8
and 9 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-
“8. That, in reply to the averments made in Paragraph – 5
of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that the present
Petitioner was allowed to continue as Jr. Grade Typist on
Adhoc basis against the post of vacant Junior Clerk
under regular Establishment till the post is filled up by aPage 13 of 17
// 14 //regular recruited candidate belonging to the category for
whom the post is ear-marked according to the model
roster in pursuance to the interim Order dtd.14.11.1995
passed in O.A. No. 2167(C) of 1995.
9. That, in reply to the averments made in Paragraph – 6
of the Writ Petition, it is submitted that the name of the
petitioner finds place in the list of employees submitted to
the Government Vide Order No.6049, dtd. 12.09.1995
(Annexure – D/3). It was clarified that the Petitioner was
on roll as an Adhoc employee as on the date of
submitting the data to the Government in Department of
Water Resources consequent upon bifurcation of Upper
Indravati Project into two wings i.e. Upper Indravati
Hydro Electric Project & Upper Indravati Irrigation Project.
The Project was under the erstwhile Irrigation & Power
Department prior to 1993. In the year 1993, the erstwhile
I & P Department was divided in two Departments i.e.
Department of Water Resources & Department of Energy.
The employees working in Civil Construction works like
Dams, Dykes, Power House, Tunnels, Tail Race and
Head Race etc. came under the Department of Energy &
the employees working in construction of Canals came
under the Department of Water Resources. This data was
submitted to the Department of Water Resources as
required by the Government. Submission of data of
employees to the Government in which the name of the
petitioner finds place does not confer on him any right for
regularization of service. Regarding reflection of his name
as Junior Clerk category (against the existing vacant
post) with remarks mentioned that, appointed on Adhoc
basis.”
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that
petitioner was initially appointed as a Jr. Grade Typist
on adhoc basis as against the post of Jr. Grade Typist
in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3 vide order
dated 23.03.1991 under Annexure-1. Subsequently,
vide order dated 01.08.1995, petitioner was allowed to
continue on 89 days basis with regular scale of pay and
Page 14 of 17
// 15 //
usual DA and other allowances as sanctioned by the
Govt. from time to time.
5.1. On the face of such continuance on adhoc basis,
when petitioner was not regularized, he approached the
Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2167(C) of 1995. The
Tribunal vide order dated 18.02.2013 while disposing
the matter, permitted the State authorities fill-up the
post in question on regular basis by inviting
applications from eligible candidates. But no such step
was taken by the State at any point of time to fill-up
the post on regular basis in complying the direction of
the Tribunal. Petitioner however was allowed to
continue in view of the nature of order passed by the
Tribunal under Annexure-7.
5.2. When no step was taken to fill up the post on
regular basis by inviting applications from amongst
eligible candidates, petitioner again approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6994 of 2022, claiming
benefit of regularization. This Court vide order dated
11.04.2022, when directed for consideration of the
Page 15 of 17
// 16 //
petitioner’s claim, the same has been rejected vide the
impugned order dated 05.08.2023 under Annexure-9.
But by the time such rejection was made, petitioner
had already attained the age of superannuation, having
retired on 30.06.2023.
5.3. This Court taking into account the continuance of
the petitioner on adhoc basis w.e.f. 23.03.1991 and
non-compliance of the direction of the Tribunal so
contained in its order dated 18.02.2013 under
Annexure-7 in filling up the post on regular basis, and
the decisions in the case of Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam
Singh as well as Bholanath so cited (supra), is of the
view that petitioner was eligible and entitled to get the
benefit of regularization, as he was continuing against
a regular vacant post so admitted in Para-11 of the
counter affidavit from his initial appointment.
5.4. In view of the above discussion, while quashing
order dated 05.08.2023 under Annexure-9, this Court
directs Opp. Party No.1 to treat the petitioner to have
retired from his service as a regular employee on
Page 16 of 17
// 17 //
30.06.2023 and extend the retiral benefits including
pension as provided under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992.
This Court directs O.P. No.1 to complete the entire
exercise within a period of 4(four) months from the date
of receipt of this order. If any admitted dues has not
been paid in terms of Annexure-12, the same be also
released within the aforesaid time period.
6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 24th February, 2026/Basudev
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 06-Mar-2026 12:23:56
Page 17 of 17