Orissa High Court
Sanjaya Kishore vs State Of Odisha & Others …. Opposite … on 10 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.25347 of 2022
In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950.
..................
Sanjaya Kishore Petitioner
Samantaray ....
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. S.K. Singh, Adv.
For Opp. Parties : M/s. C.K. Pradhan,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 10.03.2026 and Date of Judgment: 10.03.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter
alia challenging order dt.20.06.2022 so passed
under Annexure-5 by Opp. Party No.1. Vide the
// 2 //
said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit
of regularization as against the post of Peon cum
Night Watcher in the establishment of Opp. party
No.3 was rejected.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that Petitioner was engaged as a Night
Watcher in the office of the then DRDA, Khurda, on
adhoc basis with regular scale of pay w.e.f
01.12.1993 vide order dt.03.01.1994 so issued
under Annexure-1. It is contended that even
though Petitioner continued as a Night Watcher on
adhoc basis w.e.f 1.12.1993 in terms of the order
issued under Annexure-1, but when no action as
taken to absorb him in the regular establishment,
he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.1834
of 2022. This Court vide order dt.21.01.2022 under
Annexure-4 when directed for consideration of the
Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization,
taking into account the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC-1,
State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC
Page 2 of 18
// 3 //
247, Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others,
2015 (8) SCC 265, such claim of the Petitioner
without proper appreciation, was rejected vide the
impugned order dt.20.06.2022 under Anneuxre-5.
4.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that such claim of the Petitioner was
rejected on the ground that Petitioner was never
appointed as against a sanctioned post and he was
appointed without facing any selection process.
Accordingly, such irregular appointment cannot be
regularized, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi so followed in
the case of M.L. Keshari.
4.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that since Petitioner was appointed on
adhoc basis as a Night Watcher w.e.f 1.12.1993 vide
order dt.3.01.1994 under Annexure-1 and he
continued all through, the ground on which
Petitioner’s claim was rejected is no more sustainable
in the eye of law, in view of the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Jaggo Vs.
Page 3 of 18
// 4 //
Union of India & Others, 2024 INSC 1034,
Shripal & Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad,
2025 INSC 144 and Dharam Singh & Others VS.
State of U.P. & Another, 2025 Livelaw (SC) 818
and 4 and Bhola Nath Vs. State of
Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99.
4.3. 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
Page 4 of 18
// 5 //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
circumventproviding benefits. In this case, Microsoft
classified certain workers as independent
contractors, thereby denying them employee
benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit determined that these workers were, in
fact, common-law employees and were entitled
to the same benefits as regular employees. The
Court noted that large Corporations have
increasingly adopted the practice of hiring
temporary employees or independent
contractors as a means of avoiding payment of
employee benefits, thereby increasing their
profits. This judgment underscores the principle
that the nature of the work performed, rather
than the label assigned to the worker, should
determine employment status and the
corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights
the judiciary’s role in rectifying such
misclassifications and ensuring that workers
receive fair treatment.
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 addressshort-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:
Page 5 of 18
// 6 //
Employees engaged for work that is essential,
recurring, and integral to the functioning of an
institution are often labeled as “temporary” or
“contractual,” even when their roles mirror those
of regular employees. Such misclassification
deprives workers of the dignity, security,and benefits that regular employees are entitled
to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees
are frequently dismissed without cause or
notice, as seen in the present case. This
practice undermines the principles of natural
justice and subjects workers to a state of
constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or
duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions,
or incremental pay raises. They remain
stagnant in their roles,creating a systemic disparity between them
and their regular counterparts, despite their
contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing
roles performed by temporary employees,
effectively replacing one set of exploited
workers with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates
a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to
offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension,
provident fund, health insurance, and paid
leave, even when their tenure spans decades.
This lack of social security subjects them and
their families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Page 6 of 18
// 7 //
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
employmentpractices, government institutions can reduce
the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote
job security, and uphold the principles of justice
and fairness that they are meant to embody.
This approach aligns with international
standards
and sets a positive precedent for the private
sector to follow, thereby contributing to the
overall betterment of labour practices in the
country.”
4.4. 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
• 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 18
// 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.”
4.5. 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.
Page 8 of 18
// 9 //
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.
Page 9 of 18
// 10 //
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that
“ad-hocism” thrives where administration is
opaque. The State Departments must keep and
produce accurate establishment registers, muster
rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they
must explain, with evidence, why they prefer
precarious engagement over sanctioned posts
where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is
invoked, the record should show what
alternatives were considered, why similarly
placed workers were treated differently, and
how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14,
16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity
to the human consequences of prolonged
insecurity is not sentimentality. It is an
institutional discipline that should inform every
decision affecting those who keep public offices
running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed
service of the appellants, the admitted perennial
nature of their duties, and the material indicating
vacancies and comparator regularizations, 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-
Page 10 of 18
// 11 //
level for the post from time to time, and (b) the
amounts actually paid, for the period from
24.04.2002 until the date of regularization
/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts
already paid under previous interim directions
shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be
released within three months and if in default,
the unpaid amount shall carry compound
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
default until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has
already retired shall be granted regularization
with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of
superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under
clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity
and other terminal dues. The revised pension
and terminal dues shall be paid within three
months of this Judgment.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant
No. 5 and any other appellant who has died
during pendency, his/her legal representatives
on record shall be paid the arrears under clause
(ii) up to the date of death, together with all
terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently
with clause (i), within three months of this
Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Government of
Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P.
Education Services Selection Commission or the
prevalent competent authority, shall file an
affidavit of compliance before this Court within
four months of this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions
comprehensively because, case after case,
orders of this Court in such matters have been
met with fresh technicalities, rolling
“reconsiderations,” and administrative drift
which further prolongs the insecurity for those
who have already laboured for years on daily
wages. Therefore, we have learned that 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
Page 11 of 18
// 12 //
its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing,
create a budget for lawful engagement, and
implement judicial directions in letter and spirit.
Delay to follow these obligations is not mere
negligence but rather it is a conscious method of
denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for
these workers. The operative scheme we have
set here comprising of creation of supernumerary
posts, full regularization, subsequent financial
benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is
therefore a pathway designed to convert rights
into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in
engagement and transparency in administration
are not matters of grace, but obligations under
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.”
4.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath
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.
Page 12 of 18
// 13 //
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 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
Page 13 of 18
// 14 //
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 14 of 18
// 15 //
4.7. It is also contended that on the face of such
rejection of the Petitioner’s claim, Petitioner is
continuing on adhoc basis as on date and the said
fact is also admitted by the Opp. parties in their
counter affidavit. It is accordingly contended that
with quashing of the impugned order, appropriate
direction be issued to Opp. Party No.1 to absorb the
Petitioner in the regular establishment.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other
hand made his submission in support of the
impugned order taking into account the stand taken
in the counter affidavit so filed.
5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner’s very
initial engagement vide order dt.3.1.1994 under
Annexure-1 is not against a sanctioned post and
Petitioner was given such benefit of appointment
without facing any selection process, such
appointment being irregular, Petitioner cannot get
the benefit of regularization and the same has been
rightly rejected vide the impugned order
Page 15 of 18
// 16 //dt.20.06.2022 under Annexure-5. Stand taken in
para-8 & 9 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:
8. That so far as reply to Para 10 of the Writ
Petition is concerned, the present deponent has no
comments to officer. However, it is submitted that
vide resolution NO.10025-PR-District Rural
Development Agency-MISC-0049-2014/PR&DW
did. 03/06/2022 and published in extra ordinary
Odisha Gazettee 09/06/2022. The District Rural
Development Agencies have been merged with
Zilla Parishad of the concerned District.
9. That in reply to para 11 of the Writ Petition, it
is humbly submitted that in obedience to the
Order dated 21.1.202 of the Hon’ble High Court
passed in WP(C) no.1834 of 2022. all factual facts
has been taken into consideration and accordingly
the case of the petitioner for regularization has
been rejected by the Government in Panchayati
Raj and Drinking water Department vide Order
dated 20.6.2022 (under Annexure-A/3 of this
Counter affidavit). Hence the stand taken by the
petitioner in this para is hereby denied as he has
not engaged against any sanctioned post
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for
the parties and considering the submission made,
this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as an
adhoc Night Watcher in the establishment of Opp.
party No.3 (the then DRDA, Khurda) w.e.f
01.12.1993 vide order dt.03.01.1994 under
Annexure-1. It is not disputed that basing on such
order of appointment issued under Annexure-1,
Petitioner is continuing as such till date in the
Page 16 of 18
// 17 //
establishment of Opp. Party No.3, after merger of
the DRDA with Zilla Parishad.
6.1. Since it is no disputed that Petitioner is
continuing as an adhoc Night Watcher w.e.f
01.12.1993 and is continuing as such till date for
the last 32 years, it is the view of this Court that the
ground on which Petitioner’s claim was rejected vide
the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of
law.
6.2. Therefore, while quashing the impugned order
dt.20.06.2022 under Annexure-5 and placing
reliance on the decisions in the case of Jaggo,
Shripal, Dharam Singh and Bholanath so cited
supra, this Court is of the view that Petitioner is
eligible and entitled to get the benefit of
regularization, as against the post in question.
6.3. While holding so with quashing of the
impugned order, this Court directs Opp. party No.1
to pass an appropriate order regularizing the
services of the Petitioner as against the post of Night
Watcher in the establishment of opp. party No.3. If
Page 17 of 18
// 18 //
for that purpose, any sanction of post will be
required, the same shall also be taken care of. This
Court directs Opp. party No.1 to complete the entire
exercise within a period of 3(three) months from the
date of receipt of this order.
6.4. Till such a decision is taken, no coercive action
be taken against the Petitioner.
7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed
of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 10th March, 2026 /Sangita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA
Reason: authenticatoin of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 11-Mar-2026 18:14:43
Page 18 of 18
