Orissa High Court
Ranjan Kumar Mohanty vs Union Of India on 3 July, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
,
W.P (C) No.32119 of 2024
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950.
...
Ranjan Kumar Mohanty ... Petitioner
-versus-
1. Union of India, represented
through its Secretary, Department
of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of India
2. President, Indian Red Cross
Society, Odisha State Branch
3.Chairman, Working Committee,
Indian Red Cross Society, Odisha
State Branch
4. Honorary Secretary, Indian Red
Cross Society, Odisha State
Branch & Chairman Maintenance
Governance Board (MGB) ... Opp. Parties
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Petitioner - M/s. Nirmal Ranjan Routray,
J. Pradhan & S. Patra, Advocates
For Opp. Parties - Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with
Mr. D.P. Patnaik, CGC [For UOI]
M/s. J.K. Pattanaik & D. Nayak,
Advocates [For OP No.4]
....
Page 1 of 5
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 03.07.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.
Petitioner, a long serving employee of the Indian Red Cross
Society, is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Cuttack
Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 13.09.2024 whereby his
O.A No. 324 of 2021 seeking regularization/absorption of service came
to be negatived.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently submits that his
client has put in a long & spotless service spanning between May 2001
& May 2010 initially. Subsequently, he worked as Project Coordinator-
Maintenance and Management Unit (MMU) vide Letter of Engagement
dated 21.05.2015, having been selected and appointed pursuant to public
advertisement dated 12.03.2015 until termination vide letter dated
31.05.2021. He tells that the Tribunal is not justified in a wholesale way
rejecting the claim for regularization by mechanical application of ratio
in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 when law relating
the regularization has much marched further in the light of Apex Court
decision in Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034, Shripal v. Nagar
Nigam, 2025 INSC 144 and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P, 2025 INSC
998.
3. Learned CGC appearing for the OPs per contra makes submission
in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has
been constructed. He draws our attention to the terms of Employment
Page 2 of 5
Agreement dated 17.08.2015 more particularly Clause 8 wherein
conditions for ‘Termination and Retrenchment’ are specified as under:
“8. Termination & Retrenchment
i. This contractual appointment shall automatically cease and stand
cancelled as soon as the effectiveness of this agreement comes to an
end, i.e. soon after the period of agreement is over unless until the
agreement is renewed with mutual consent.
ii. During the probation period, the parties can terminate the
employment agreement by giving 7 days prior written notice.
iii. In the event of unforeseeable event beyond the control of the parties
from meeting its obligation under this agreement, the contractual
obligation as far as affected by such event shall be suspended for as
long as the impossibility of performance due to this situation
continues provided that the other parties is notified within one week of
the occurrence of the unforeseeable even. If the force of the
unforeseeable event lasts more than 30 days, either parties to this
agreement may terminate within one week by giving written notice.
iv. The Organization / employee shall live the right to terminate thi.
Agreement at any time with immediate effect without any notice and
assigning any reason thereof, for any one or more of the following
reasons.
a. If the employee, is in the opinion of the Organization guilty of
inattention or negligence in the conduct of the events and affairs of
the Organization or of any other serious act or omission
inconsistent with his duties or commits any serious breach of any
of his allegation under this agreement or contravene any of the
terms, rules, principles of the organization.
b. If the Employee is absent without leave for a continuous period of
seven days without any intimation in writing to the Organization.
c. If the employee, is in the opinion of the organization, guilty of any
act or omission adversely affecting the goodwill, reputation, credit,
operations or affairs of the organization or commission of any
crime or offence involving material dishonesty or moral turpitude.
d. If the employee, is in the opinion of the organization, guilty of any
dishonesty, fraud, breach of statutory duties, breach of
confidentiality obligation, pilferage and theft, attending work
under the influence of any intoxicating substances. breach of the
organization rules and policy disobedience of reasonable orders
from superiors or authority, causing actual or threatening physical
harm or damage to the organization property, any other act of
misconduct.”(sic)
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the
matter as under and for the following reasons:
Page 3 of 5
4.1. The contention of the Petitioner’s counsel that his client has put in
a long & spotless service is supported by the evidentiary material on
record. He is right in telling us that even in the initial spell of service,
Petitioner was entitled to have his case favourably considered for
regularization, if not absorption, his services having been found
absolutely satisfactory sans any complaint whatsoever.
4.2. The Tribunal’s order gives a lot of scope for the complaint that
the ratio in Umadevi supra has been pressed into service mindlessly for
denying relief to the Petitioner. It hardly needs to be stated that law
being a flowing river, does not stand still and therefore, its march from
April to May and then to the June of life cannot be ignored. Had the
Tribunal slightly adverted to the decision of the Apex Court in Vinod
Kumar v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 332, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam,
2025 INSC 144 and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P, 2025 INSC 998, the
impugned order would have been much different and to the advantage of
the Petitioner. Umadevi is only a traveler’s inn and not the destination
point of journey. This aspect having not animated the impugned order,
the same is liable to be voided. It hardly needs to be stated that the
rulings in Jaggo & Shripal supra would come to the aid of Petitioner
and therefore, the prayer for regularization would not have been denied.
4.3. The vehement submission of learned CGC that Petitioner having
signed the agreement dated 17.08.2015 now cannot turn around and seek
regularization/absorption. It hardly needs to be stated that job is the only
source of livelihood for the Petitioner, there being no contra indication
in the pleadings of OPs and such job seekers would not be having
bargaining power qua the State entity under Article 12 of the
Constitution. Therefore, the terms of the agreement that arguably come
Page 4 of 5
to the rescue of OPs have to be taken with a pinch of salt, if not the sack.
This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Apex Court in Pani
Ram v. Union of India, (2021) 19 SCC 234, wherein the following
observations are made:
“23. As held by this Court, a right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of
the Constitution of India would also apply to a man who has no choice or
rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign
on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules
as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a
clause in that contract or form or rules may be. We find that the said
observations rightly apply to the facts of the present case. Can it be said that
the mighty Union of India and an ordinary soldier, who having fought for
the country and retired from Regular Army, seeking re-employment in the
Territorial Army, have an equal bargaining power. We are therefore of the
considered view that the reliance placed on the said document would also be
of no assistance to the case of the respondents.”
In the above circumstances, this Petition succeeds. A Writ of
certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 passed
in O.A. No.324 of 2021 coupled with a direction to the OPs to continue
the Petitioner in service and to regularize his services with prospective
effect. The compliance report shall be filed before the Registrar General
of this Court within an outer limit of eight weeks.
Costs reluctantly made easy.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna S. Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 3rd day of July, 2026/Anisha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ANISHA NANDA
Page 5 of 5
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 07-Jul-2026 11:00:22
