WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 1 of 75

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

WPC (OAC) No.3584 of 2014

In the matter of an Application under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950

read with

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

***

Ananta Charan Bal

Aged about 59 years

Son of Late Giridhari Bal

At/P.O.: Janara Barimula

P.S/District: Kendrapara

At present working as

Watchman

Under the Rural Works Division

Kendrapara … Petitioner

-VERSUS-

1. State of Odisha

Represented by

Secretary

Department of Rural Works, Odisha,

New Secretariat Building, Bhubaneswar

District: Khordha

2. Chief Engineer

Rural Works, Odisha

Bhubaneswar

District: Khordha

3. Executive Engineer

Rural Works Division

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 2 of 75

Kendrapara

At/P.O./District: Kendrapara

4. Secretary

Works Department

Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar

District: Khordha

5. Superintending Engineer

NH Circle (North), Bhubaneswar

At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar

District: Khordha. …Opposite parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : M/s. Bipin Kumar Nayak,

Mihir Kanta Rath, Advocates

For the Opposite parties : Mr. Saswat Das,

Additional Government Advocate

along with

Mr. Prem Kumar Mohanty,

Additional Standing Counsel

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE

MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Date of Hearing : 20.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 07.03.2026

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Office Order No.4 of 2011-12, dated

25.02.2012 of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works

Division, Kendrapara, bringing the petitioner, a Daily

Labour Roll (“DLR”, for short) employee, brought over to

Work-Charged Establishment (Annexure-8) instead of

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 3 of 75

regularising his service against available vacancies in

the Regular Establishment as disclosed in Letter vide

Memo No.1335, dated 21.03.1998 of the Superintending

Engineer, Central Circle, Rural Works, Bhubaneswar

(Annexure-9), an Original Application under Section 19

of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, registered as

O.A. No.3584 (C) of 2014, was filed before the Odisha

Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack

beseeching following relief(s):

“In view of the facts stated above in paragraph-6, the

applicant prays for the following relief(s):-

(i) Let the action of the respondent in bring over the

applicant to the Work Charged Establishment as per

order dated 25.02.2012 under Annexure-8 instead

of regularizing the services of the applicant in terms

of Annexure-9 and the regularization of similarly

situated DLRs working in different Division of Works

Department in the facts and circumstances of the

case be declared as illegal.

(ii) Let the respondents be directed to regularize the

services of the applicant in terms of Annexure-9 and

similar orders passed by different Divisions coming

under works Department i.e. from the year 1998

within a stipulated time.

(iii) Let the respondents be directed to extend all service

and financial benefits on such regularization of the

applicant from the year 1998 till his retirement

within a stipulated time.

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 4 of 75

(iv) Let any other order/orders be passed as deem fit

and proper.”

1.1. After abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by

virtue of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and

Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training)

Notification F. No.A-11014/10/2015-AT [G.S.R.552(E).],

dated 2

nd August, 2019), the said case having been

transferred to this Court, O.A. No.3584(C) of 2014 has

been re-registered as WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014.

Facts:

2. From the adumbrated facts on record, it can be culled

out that the petitioner, engaged as DLR employee under

the category “Unskilled Watchman” in the Office of the

Executive Engineer, Expressway Division, Kendrapara

(Now R&B Division No.II) on 14.05.1984 , being

transferred to the Rural Works Division, Kendrapara,

joined on 31.10.1991.

2.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that without reckoning

his service rendered to the employer since 14.05.1984,

although the petitioner seamlessly continued to serve

the Rural Works Department, Government of Odisha

despite his transfer in the year 1991, he has not been

accorded benefit in service. Pursuant to the orders dated

28.07.1998 and 18.05.2000 of the Works Department,

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 5 of 75

similarly situated persons who joined as DLR

Employees, have been regularized in their services.

2.2. By Letter bearing No.RWSE-III-26/09-14911/RD, dated

23.02.2009 issued by the Government of Odisha in

Rural Development Department, 1565 numbers of NMR/

DLR employees working under the Rural Works

Organisation and 1805 numbers of NMR/DLR

employees working under the RWS&S Organization

being engaged prior to 13.04.1993 were brought over to

the Work-Charged Establishment in terms of

instructions of the Odisha Work-Charged Employees

(Appointment and Condition of Service) Instruction,

1974.

2.3. Though the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No.1

under the heading of “Watchman (Unskilled)” i n the

Detailed Seniority List of NMR/DLR employees working

under the Rural Works Division, Kendrapara (Annexure-

4), against the column “Date of Engagement”, it is

reflected as “Since 1984”. The petitioner supplied

information to the Authority concerned showing his date

of engagement as “14.05.1984”.

2.4. Despite such step being taken, the authority concerned

having not carried out necessary correction in the

seniority list, the employees engaged latter to the

petitioner have been accorded benefit of regularization in

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 6 of 75

service. Flagging such issue, the petitioner approached

the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack

Bench, Cuttack by way of an Original Application,

bearing O.A. No.814(C) of 2011, under Section 19 of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which came to be

disposed of on 23.03.2011 with a direction to the Chief

Engineer and Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division,

Kendrapara to consider the Original Application as

representation and pass appropriate orders thereon.

2.5. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the Executive

Engineer, Rural Works Division, Kendrapara issued

Office Order No.4 of 2011-2012, dated 25.02.2012

reckoning the engagement of the petitioner prior to

12.04.1993, which reads as thus:

“Government of Odisha

Office of the Executive Engineer

Rural Works Division, Kendrapara

Office Order No.4 of 2011-12

In pursuance of Letter No.3226 dt.24.02.2012 of Chief

Engineer, Rural Works-I (O) Bhubaneswar received along

with approved list of the following identified DLR workers

who are engaged prior to 12.04.1993 are hereby

provisionally brought over to the Work-Charged

Establishment in the post/scale of pay/category etc. as

indicated against them from the date of their joining.

The Service condition will be regulated as per provision

laid down in Odisha Work-Charged Employees

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 7 of 75

(Appointment and Condition of Service) Instruction, 1974

and amendments made thereon.

The appointment is purely temporary and subject to

fulfilment of the condition of the appointment attached

here with.

No TTA will be allowed for the purpose of joining in place

of posting.

Sl.

No

Name of the Identified

DLRs

Date of Birth Category Post in which

appointed/Pay

Scale

Office where

in posted

1. Sri Hrusikesh Parida 24.04.1971 Mate 0440-

14680GP-1300

RW Sub-

Division,

Marsaghai

2. Sri Ananta Charan Bal 05.02.1955 Watch

Man

4440-14680

GP-1300

R W Sub-

Division,

Kendrapara

Sd/- D.P. Dash

Executive Engineer

RW Division, Kendrapara”

2.6. While the petitioner was continuing in the Expressway

Division, Kendrapara, he was transferred to the Rural

Works Division, Kendrapara with effect from 31.10.1991.

Since the similarly situated persons were allowed to

continue in the Expressway Division, Kendrapara as well

as other Divisions coming under the Works Department,

they have been regularized pursuant to Letters dated

28.07.1998 and 18.05.2000 issued by the Government

in the Works Department. The Superintending Engineer,

Rural Works, Central Circle vide his communication

addressed to opposite party No.2 dated 21.03.1998

submitted the list of eligible DLR employees for their

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 8 of 75

absorption in Class-IV (Group-D) posts in the Rural

Works Division, Kendrapara.

2.7. The petitioner is aggrieved by Office Order dated

25.02.2012 issued by the Executive Engineer, R.W.

Division, Kendrapara, whereby his service was brought

over to the Work-Charged Establishment in the post of

Watchman, even though it transpires from Letter vide

Memo No.1335 dated 21.03.1998 of the Superintending

Engineer, Central Circle, Rural Works, Bhubaneswar

(Annexure-9) that five numbers of Sweeper- cum-Night

Watchman posts were lying vacant under the Rural

Works Division, Kendrapara. It is alleged by the

petitioner that instead of regularising his service against

the vacant post, he could not have been brought over to

Work-Charged Establishment even though it is admitted

position that he has been engaged and working prior to

13.04.1993.

Submissions of counsel for the petitioner:

3. With the aforesaid background facts, Sri Mihir Kanta

Rath, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that

since the similarly situated DLR employees were brought

under the Regular Establishment in different divisions of

the Rural Works Department, merely because the

petitioner was transferred to other Division in the year

1991, he should not have been ignored from being

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 9 of 75

brought over to the Regular Establishment as his

counterparts have been allowed to enjoy the benefit of

being retained.

3.1. It is submitted that the petitioner by virtue of Officer

Order vide Memo No.216, dated 18.02.2015 got retired

from Government service with effect from 28.02.2015

(Afternoon) on attaining the age of superannuation as

Worked-Charged employee of Rural Works Division,

Kendrapara.

3.2. The petitioner seeks issue of writ of mandamus to the

Authority concerned to bring him over to the Regular

Establishment prior to his retirement, as was done in

the case of similarly circumstanced employees, so that

he can be extended with the retiral benefits.

3.3. Sri Mihir Kanta Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner

placed heavy reliance on the J udgment dated

02.09.2022 rendered by this Court in the case of

Debendranath Sahoo Vrs. State of Odisha and others,

WPC(OA) No.1791 of 2017, reported at (2022) III ILR-CUT

282.

4. Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government

Advocate along with Sri Prem Kumar Mohanty, learned

Additional Standing Counsel referring to paragraph-7 of

the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties,

submitted that the initial date of engagement of the

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 10 of 75

petitioner has been accepted by the Authority (Executive

Engineer, Rural Works Division, Kendrapara) as

“01.07.1984” which was also accepted by the

Government (Opposite party No.1). On the basis of such

date of engagement, the service of the petitioner was

brought over to the Work-Charged Establishment with

effect from 25.02.2012 in order to comply with Order

dated 21.03.2011 passed by the learned Administrative

Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.814(C) of

2011.

4.1. Referring to paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, it is

submitted that as per the Policy decision of the

Government and upon issuance of Resolution by the

Finance Department on 15.05.1997, the opposite parties

to carry out the instructions, started to take stock of

NMR and DLR employees working under them. Since

there was ban order restricting engagement with effect

from 12.04.1993, it became necessary to ascertain the

exact date of engagement of each NMR/DLR employees.

Verification of records were conducted in different offices

to ascertain the actual date of engagement. Ascertaining

the actual date of engagement in order to determine the

inter se seniority, it consumed substantial period.

Ultimately, the list of identified DLR and NMR employees

was prepared and sent to the Government for obtaining

necessary concurrence and approval from the Finance

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 11 of 75

Department. In phased manner, the services of the

identified NMR and DLR employees were brought over to

the Work-Charged Establishment being regulated under

the Odisha Work Charged Employee (Appointment and

Condition of Service) Instruction, 1974 as amended from

time to time.

4.2. Relying on the date of transfer of the petitioner to be

placed under the control of Executive Engineer, Rural

Works Division, Kendrapara, the aforesaid date of

engagement has been accepted and service benefits as

admissible has been extended to the petitioner at par

with the DLR employees who were brought over to the

Work-Charged Establishment. The petitioner has not put

forth any singular instance to buttress his contention

that the employees joined as DLR prior to 12.04.1993

and subsequent to 01.07.1984 have been granted the

relief as claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition.

Therefore, the learned Additional Government Advocate

fervently prayed to reject the claim of the petitioner.

4.3. The learned Additional Standing Counsel placed reliance

on Annexure-A/3 which reveals as follows:

“Office of the Executive Engineer

Rural Works Division, Kendrapara

No.5521/dt. 19.7.2011

To

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 12 of 75

The Chief Engineer

Rural Works-I(O),

Bhubaneswar

Sub.: Regularization of Identified DLR in Work-Charged

Establishment engaged prior to 12.04.1993.

Ref.: Your Letter No.5204, dated 05.04.2011.

Sir,

In inviting a kind reference to the above noted

subject, I am to state that Sri Ananta Charan Bal (D

L R Watch Man) has been engaged prior to

12.4.1993 i.e. during 1984 as reported by Assistant

Engineer R.W. Sub-Division Aul. In absence of exact

date and month of joining as D L R may be treated

as 1.07.1984 in line with fixation of assumed date of

birth when year of birth is declared.

His seniority may please be fixed accordingly and he

may please be regularized in Work Charged

Establishment.

This is for favour of your kind information and

necessary action.”

4.4. It is, therefore, submitted that as no evidence is

available to ascertain the actual date of engagement as

claimed by the petitioner, the authority has accepted the

date of engagement as “01.07.1984” and accordingly, the

petitioner before his superannuation was brought over to

the Work-Charged Establishment.

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 13 of 75

4.5. Hence the learned Additional Government Advocate/

Additional Standing Counsel would submit that no

necessity arises in the present nature of case to show

indulgence.

Analysis and discussions:

5. Having glanced at the pleadings, the undisputed facts

emanated from material on record that the petitioner

joined as DLR Watchman prior to 12.04.1993 and the

date of engagement has been taken as “01.07.1984”. The

Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Kendrapara

vide Letter No.5521 dated 19.07.2011 (Annexure -A/3)

enclosed to the counter affidavit, reflected said date as

date of engagement which remained unrebutted, though

the petitioner claimed the said date to be treated as

“14.05.1984” in the petition.

5.1. As is revealed from the records that the petitioner while

working as Unskilled Watchman in the Work-Charged

Establishment, got retired with effect from 28.02.2015

on attaining the age of superannuation, thereby the fact

that he offered more than thirty years of continuous

service is not denied by the opposite parties.

6. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the

petitioner highlighted that had the petitioner been

brought over to the Regular Establishment considering

the length of service rendered in the Department as DLR

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 14 of 75

employee, he could be extended the pensionary benefits.

This Court considered such plight in very many earlier

occasions with respect to similarly circumstanced

persons.

6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to coordinate

Bench Judgment dated 17.12.2021 rendered in the case

of Sadananda Setha Vrs. State of Odisha & others,

WPC(OAC) No.865 of 2018, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine

Ori 2111 to countenance his submission that in identical

factual matrix, this Court allowed the relief(s) akin to

that is claimed in the present case. This Court recorded

the following fact and conclusion in Sadananda Setha

(supra):

“3. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the Petitioner had

joined as „Khalalsi‟ on 1st March, 1989 under the

provision of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme (in

short „R.A.S.‟) under work charged establishment

instead of regular establishment. In course of his

employment, the Petitioner had submitted several

representations to the authorities to bring him over to

the regular establishment but the grievance of the

Petitioner remained unheard by the authorities till

the date of his retirement on 30th June, 2016. The

Petitioner has, therefore, stated that it is due to the

sheer negligence and latches on the part of the

authorities he was not given appointment in regular

establishment. Since at the time of retirement, the

service of the Petitioner was not regularized, he has

been denied pensionary and other retiral benefits by

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 15 of 75

his employer, which is illegal, arbitrary and

discriminatory.

***

9. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Opposite

Parties states that DOWR Resolution dated 7th

September, 1995 wherein it has been stipulated that

employees completing ten years in work charged

establishment are eligible to be brought over to the

regular establishment. …

***

14. The Petitioner‟s case is that although he was

appointed as R.A.S. on 1st March, 1989 i.e. much

prior to the cut off date fixed by the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court of India i.e. 13th April, 1993, the Petitioner

should have been brought over to the regular

establishment before his retirement from service. The

State Government counter does not reveal as to

whether any scheme pursuant to the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court of India‟s direction was ever

prepared or not and if such a scheme was prepared

whether the list was prepared on the basis of

seniority of the work charged employees. In the

absence of any such information, this Court is

constrained to accept the fact that the State

Government has not acted in a manner as directed

by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India concerning

the work charged employees. Moreover, the

Petitioner was exploited by a model employer like

the State for several decades as a work charged

employee without giving him the service benefits of

the regular establishment.

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 16 of 75

15. Moreover, even accepting the argument for Opposite

Parties that the DOWR resolution dated 7th

September, 1995 provides that on completion of ten

years of service in work charged establishment, the

work charged is eligible to be brought over to regular

establishment. In the present case, the Petitioner

joined as „Khalalsi‟ on 1st March, 1989. It is not

known as to what prevented the authorities to bring

the Petitioner to regular establishment for such a

long time as such the same has caused injustice to

the Petitioner in the present case.

16. Since the Petitioner has retired from service on

attaining age of superannuation, the question of his

regularization against the regular post does not arise

for consideration in the present writ petition. It is a

case of pensionary benefits payable to the Petitioner

i.e. required to be considered in the present writ

petition. Since the benefits have been granted to

other similarly placed work charged employees by

notionally considering them as regular

establishment employee and as such the pensionary

benefits have been given to them, the same benefit

needs to be extended to the Petitioner for services

rendered by him under the State Government for

several decades continuously that too on payment of

a paltry amount every month. The whole objective of

the pension scheme is to support an employee and

his family after retirement which is in recognition of

his relentless service to the Govt. and such benefits

are provided under the Rules on humanitarian

considerations.”

6.2. In an identical case where the NMR employees were

brought over to the Work-Charged Establishment, this

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 17 of 75

Court in the Judgment dated 07.04.2022 rendered in

Ramesh Chandra Biswal & Others Vrs. State of Odisha &

Others, WPC (OAC) No. 1067 of 2018 analysed the

applicability of the Finance Department Resolution dated

15.05.1997 and held:

“13. Having examined the aforesaid resolution, this Court

finds that nowhere it mandates that the NMR/DLR/

Job Contract workers are to be first brought over to

the Work-Charged establishment before

regularization of their services. Such being the

position, it is not understood nor adequately clarified

by the opposite parties as to on what basis the

petitioners were brought over to the work-charged

establishment in the year 2009, which is after the

judgment passed in State of Karnataka and others

Vrs. Umadevi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806, even

though they had put in nearly three decades of

uninterrupted service and were, therefore, otherwise

eligible to be considered for absorption in the regular

establishment as per the ratio of Umadevi and even

as per the resolution dated 15.05.1997. Reference

has been made to the Resolution No.21828 dated

07.09.1995 of the Government in Water Resources

Department, enclosed as Annexure-C to the counter,

which provides for regularization of services of NMR

and Work-Charged employees but then, after coming

into force of the Finance Department Resolution

dated 15.05.1997, the same stood automatically

superseded. Therefore, reliance placed on the said

resolution to justify the action of the authorities in

bringing over the petitioners to the Work-Charged

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 18 of 75

Establishment in the year 2009 is entirely fallacious

and untenable.

14. The Opposite Parties have also referred to the

Instructions 1974 to contend that the petitioners

having accepted and acquiesced to being brought

over to the work-charged establishment without any

challenge to their service conditions as provided in

the said instruction, cannot now seek a relief de hors

the provisions in Instructions 1974. This is a

fallacious argument inasmuch as when the

Constitution Bench of the highest Court of the land

has placed a definite obligation on the Government

(in Umadevi) to act in a particular manner in respect

of such category of employees and it has not done

so, how can it turn around to question the so-called

conduct of the employees by raising the plea of

acceptance and acquiescence? To reiterate, the Apex

Court in Umadevi as explained in State of Karnataka

Vrs. M.L. Kesari & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2587,

mandated that every department of the Government

should undertake a one-time exercise of verification

of such employees to consider if they are eligible to

be regularized, and if so, to regularize them. This

being the law of the land has to be followed in letter

and spirit by all concerned. The concerned

department in the instant case has however, acted

as per its own decision overlooking the mandate of

the Apex Court to simply bring the petitioners (and

similarly placed other employees) to the work-

charged establishment instead of undertaking the

exercise as mandated in Umadevi. The stand of the

opposite parties is therefore, untenable.

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 19 of 75

This Court is also unable to agree with the other

contention raised by the opposite parties that the

petitioners being governed by the Instructions 1974

cannot seek any relief de hors such instructions.

This is for the reason that undoubtedly Instructions

1974 are applicable to all Work-Charged employees

but the same does not speak of regularization of

such employees, but lays down their various service

conditions. As already stated, even apart from

Umadevi, the FD Resolution dated 15.05.1997 holds

the field in the matter of regularization of not only

NMF/DLR/Job Contract employees but also the

Work-Charged employees. Significantly, the opposite

parties have themselves stated so in their counter

affidavit under paragraph-9, the relevant portion of

which is extracted herein below:

„9. *** Moreover, it is humbly submitted that the

Finance Department in a subsequent resolution

dated 15.5.1997 on the scheme for absorption

of NMR/DLR/Job Contract Workers under

Regular establishment vide Annexure-B have in

supersession to all the orders/resolution/

notification etc. issued by various department

of Government for regularization of such

category of workers issued norms and

conditions for absorption in regular

establishment. The Para-8 of the said

resolution clearly states that while filling the

regular vacant posts preference shall be given

to Work-Charged Employees first. Where no

suitable Work-Charged employees are

available to man the post, preference shall be

given in the following order, i.e., NMR/

DLR/Job Contract Workers. Thus, there is

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 20 of 75

existing scheme for absorption in regular

establishment as Finance Department

Resolution dated 15.05.1997 vide Annexure-B

which supersedes all previous resolutions

including Finance Department Resolution dated

22.01.1965 dated 06.03.1990 issued in the

subject matter of absorption.***‟

However, the provisions of the Resolution were

never applied in case of the petitioners.

15. It is also seen that the claim of regularization of the

petitioners is sought to be repelled by the opposite

parties by contending that they have made a

backdoor entry into Government service without

being sponsored by the employment exchange or

undergoing any recruitment procedure. In this

context, it is significant to refer to the averments

made under paragraph-6 of the writ petition to the

effect that the petitioners were duly appointed

against existing vacant posts in the regular

establishment. Such averment has not been

controverted in any manner in the counter affidavit.

Even assuming for a moment that the petitioners

were not validly engaged, the question is, how could

they be retained for such an inordinately long period

of time and secondly, how could a gradation list of

such employees be prepared and finalized and

thirdly, how could they be taken over to the work-

charged establishment? Of course, this court is

conscious of the proposition that mere continuance

for a long period per se does not confer any right on

the person concerned to claim regular appointment

de hors the Constitutional requirement, but then the

observations of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 21 of 75

under paragraph-53 thereof as referred to

hereinbefore, cannot also be overlooked. The long

and short of the issue at hand is, the petitioners

claim to have fulfilled the criteria laid down in

Umadevi and therefore, should at least have been

considered for regularization of their services within

six months of the passing of judgment in Umadevi.

16. From the facts narrated hereinbefore, it is apparent

that the petitioners, despite having put in merely

three decades of continuous service to the State

have been left in the lurch. Some of them have also

retired in the meantime. The fact that the petitioners

have continued for so long proves that there was

work for them. If such be the case then, taking work

from them for such a long period of time, but

depriving them from the wages and other benefits

payable/being paid to their counter-parts in the

regular establishment is nothing but exploitation of

the labour force by the Government, which is not

expected from it, as it is supposed to be a model

employer. The direction of the Constitution Bench in

Umadevi, as amplified in M.L. Kesari [AIR 2010 SC

2587] is clear and unambiguous and places an

obligation on the Government to regularize as one-

time measure, all eligible casual employees who

fulfill the criteria laid down therein within a period of

six months. Alas, sixteen long years have passed

since the date of judgment in Umadevi and yet there

are no materials to suggest that the case of the

petitioners was considered in pursuance of the ratio

of Umadevi. It would therefore, be in the fitness of

things to remit the matter to the opposite parties to

first take a decision with regard to regularization of

the services of the petitioners with due regard to all

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 22 of 75

relevant factors like availability of posts, seniority

etc.”

6.3. In Meera Piri Vrs. State of Orissa and Ors., 104 (2007)

CLT 445 = 2007 (II) OLR 533 = 2007 SCC OnLine Ori 166

in the context of NMR employees who have worked for

considerable length of time, it was observed as follows:

“12. Law is well settled that main concern of the Court in

the above situation is to see that the executive acts

fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees

consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution of India. It also means that the

State should not exploit its employees nor should it

seek to take advantage of the helplessness and

misery of either the unemployed persons or the

employees, as the case may be. Since the State is a

model employer it is for this reason equal pay must

be given for equal work which is indeed one of the

directive principles of the Constitution. The person

should not be kept in temporary or ad hoc status for

long time. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment

is continued for long the Court presumes that there

is need and warrant for a regular post and

accordingly directs regularization. If an ad hoc or

temporary employee is continued for a fairly long

spell, the authorities must consider his case for

regularization provided he is eligible and qualified

according to the rules and his service record is

satisfactory and his appointment does not run

counter to reservation policy of the State. The normal

rule of course is regular recruitment through the

prescribed agency but exigencies of administration

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 23 of 75

may sometimes call for an ad hoc and temporary

appointment to be made.

13. The question of regularization in any service

including any Government service arises in two

contingencies.

Firstly, if on any available clear vacancies which are

of a long duration, appointments are made on ad hoc

basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority

and are continued from time to time and if it is found

that the incumbent concerned have continued to be

employed for a long period of time with or without

any artificial break and their services are otherwise

required by the institution which employs them, a

time may come in service career of such employees

who are continued on ad hoc basis for a given

substantial length of time to regularize them so that

the employee concerned can give their best by being

assured security of tenure. But this would require

one precondition that the initial entry of such

employee must be made against an available

sanctioned vacancy by following the rules and

regulations governing such entry.

The second type of situation in which the question of

regularization may arise would be when the initial

entry of the employee against an available vacancy

is found to have suffered from some flaws in the

procedural exercise though the person appointing is

competent to effect such initial recruitment and has

otherwise followed due procedure for such

recruitment. The Petitioner‟s case comes under first

category.”

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 24 of 75

6.4. In the case at hand, the opposite parties have not

disputed nor set forth in the counter denying the fact of

vacancy position as reflected in Letter vide Memo

No.1335, dated 21.03.1998 issued by the

Superintending Engineer, Central Circle, Rural Works

Department. It is manifest from the record that for more

than 30 years the model employer-State utilized the

service of the petitioner as Watchman.

6.5. In a case where an employee has served for 32 years in

the Work-Charged Establishment, this Court vide

Judgment dated 26.04.2022 in the case of Biswanath

Gouda Vrs. State of Odisha & Others, WPC(OA) No.2359

of 2013, observed the following with regard to

entitlements regarding service benefits:

“8. Reading the above this Court finds, one must have

completed five years of continuous service and there

was likelihood of continuance of him in future and

the post where the Petitioner is placed must be a

sanctioned and permanent in nature and in such

contingency, if considered suitable, one should be

absorbed in the corresponding post created in

regular establishment. The Opposite Parties though

took the plea that the Petitioner has served in

different projects, therefore, there is no application of

above condition, this Court, however, finds, it is the

State Government who had engaged the Petitioner

though in a different establishment, but in particular

scale of pay. The State utilized the services of the

Petitioner for long 32 years that too continuously for

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 25 of 75

more than three decades. Petitioner had no choice

but to continue under the Public Establishment. Not

only this establishment, but even considering the

length of services of the Petitioner imparted, position

of Law even after tempted to bring him to regular

establishment. It is too late for the State-Opposite

Parties to claim that since the Petitioner was

engaged allthrough in work-charged establishment,

he is not entitled to pension otherwise. This Court

here again also finds, at some point of time

considering the claim of the Petitioner, name of the

Petitioner name was already empaneled and

recommended to be brought into the regular

establishment and as has also been communicated

to the Petitioner vide Annexure-12 on 25.06.2010 i.e.

the date the Petitioner was still in service. The entire

gamut clearly establishes that there is exploitation of

services of the Petitioner by none else than the State-

Establishment. This person having continuously

served for 32 years, was entitled to several

promotions and while continuing as such, he was to

entitled to different scale of pay. It is unfair and

unbecoming on the part of the State to see that it‟s

employees after providing so much of service even

more than three decades of his career, does not get

any protection to survive for the rest part of his life

and there is clear obstruction by the State to see its

employee after putting up so much of service at least

to have a decent retired life. At a time when there is

a class of people at State level so also Central level

are entitled to pension even if they have not served

one elected term. This Court is of view that the State

has not performed its duty as a model employer.

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 26 of 75

9. Now coming to decide; upon superannuation

whether the Petitioner maintains a claim for being

considered for pension, this Court here finds, the

O.A. decided by the Tribunal bearing No.622 of 1999

in the case of Chaitanya Gouda & Ors. Vrs. State of

Orissa & Others, clearly involves a superannuated

person like that of the Petitioner. The Tribunal

deciding the above O.A. vide Annexure-13 has given

the following direction in paragraph No.5 therein:

„5. I accordingly direct that the applicants shall be

absorbed in any establishment posts from the

time they completed five years continuous

service till the date when they retired from

service for the purpose of pension and other

pensionary benefits. After such absorption,

their pension and other pensionary benefits

shall be computed on the basis of the notional

fixation of pay in the regular establishment by

adding annual increments which fell due and

also taking into account various revisions of

pay scales that were introduced. The process

shall be completed within three months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the Original Application is

allowed.‟

10. In a further development this Court finds, for the

order of the Tribunal hereinabove being challenged

before the High Court in O.J.C. No.12087 of 1999,

this Court by its Judgment dated 01.05.2001 had

ultimately passed the following in confirmation with

the order of the Tribunal:

„2. Having heard learned counsel, we find no

ground to interfere with the impugned order in

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 27 of 75

view of the fact that the matter in dispute

already stands concluded by two decisions of

this Court in State of Orissa & others Vrs.

Jhuma Parida & ors. (O.J.C. No.1162 of 1999,

decided on 10.05.2000) and State of Orissa

and others Vrs. Sudarsan Sahu and another

(O.J.C. No.11028 of 1999 decided on

25.11.1999) in which similar challenge to the

order of the Tribunal was made.

Admittedly opposite parties 1 to 5 rendered

their valuable services and considering this

and in the light of the decision of the Apex

Court in SLP No.11929-930 of 1998 the

impugned direction was issued. Hence, we are

of the view that no illegality has been

committed by the Tribunal in its order.

Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed.‟

11. This matter again visited the Hon‟ble apex Court and

the Hon‟ble apex Court in disposal of the SLP(C)

….../2003 CC 3196/2003 has come to dismiss the

SLP observing as follows: “It appears that some

officers of the State have formed the habit of not

filing the petition for special leave within a

reasonable time. There is a delay of 578 days in

filing the present petition for which no justifiable

reason is mentioned in the application for

condonation of delay. Hence this petition is

dismissed on the ground of delay with Rs.5,000/- as

costs to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Services

Committee.

12. This Court here finds, there has been compliance of

the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.622 of 1999 after

final disposal of the matter in Hon‟ble apex Court

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 28 of 75

and further there has also been compliance of

similar nature of relief involving similar issues

disposed of by the Tribunal in O.A. No.425 of 2011.

This Court again finds, there has been again

disposal of number of writ petitions by this Court

involving similar issue such as W.P.(C) No.19550 of

2011 and in one such writ petition while a Division

Bench of this Court taking note of similar

development through several writ petitions and also

taking note of development through disposal of Civil

Appeal No.10690 of 2017, finally directed the State

to comply the direction in favour of the Petitioner

within specific period. It is shocking to observe that

even after the State‟s endeavor in Hon‟ble apex

Court in similar matters, the State does not realize

the legal state of affairs in such matters and

compelling the persons to avail till a command is

given by the competent Court.”

6.6. This Court in Anadi Sunai Vrs. State of Odisha, WPC (OA)

No.302 of 2010 vide Order dated 18th February, 2022

observed as follows:

“5. It is contended that one Narusu Pradhan, a similar

circumstanced person like the petitioner had filed

O.A. No. 1189 (C) of 2006 praying for retrial benefits.

The Tribunal allowed the retiral pensionary benefits

in his favour vide order dated 11.06.2009, which

was challenged by the State before this Court in

W.P.(C) No. 5377 of 2010. This Court dismissed the

writ petition on 19.12.2011 and confirmed the order

passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter against the order

passed by this Court, the State has preferred SLP in

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 29 of 75

Civil Appeal No. 22498 of 2012, the same was also

dismissed on 07.01.2013.

6. In that view of the matter, the relief claimed by the

petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of the

Tribunal passed in the case of Narusu Pradhan,

which has been confirmed by this Court as well as

the apex Court. Thus the petitioner, having stood in

similar footing, is entitled to get the benefits which

have been extended to Narusu Pradhan and all the

differential benefits and consequential benefits, as

due and admissible to him, shall be granted to him

in accordance with law within a period of four

months from the date of communication of this

order.”

6.7. Holding that the petitioner-Watchman is treated to have

been regularized in service at least one day prior to his

superannuation notionally, this Court in the case of

Chandra Nandi Vrs. State of Odisha & Others, 2014 (I)

OLR 734 = 2014 SCC OnLine Ori 7 38 = 118 (2014) CLT

282, directed for calculation of entitlements including

pension and arrear pension. Said matter being carried to

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State

of Odisha Vrs. Chandra Nandi, (2019) 4 SCC 357 , the

Order of this Court reported in 2014 (I) OLR 734 = 2014

SCC OnLine Ori 738 = 118 (2014) CLT 282 has been set

aside on the following ground:

“11. The order [Chandra Nandi Vrs. State of Orissa, 2014

SCC OnLine Ori 738 = 118 (2014) CLT 282]

impugned in this appeal suffers from the aforesaid

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 30 of 75

error, because the High Court while passing the

impugned order [Chandra Nandi Vrs. State of

Orissa, 2014 SCC OnLine Ori 738 = 118 (2014) CLT

282] had only issued the writ of mandamus by

giving direction to the State to give some reliefs to

the writ petitioner (respondent) without recording

any reason.

12. We are, therefore, of the view that such order is not

legally sustainable and hence deserves to be set

aside.”

This Court upon rehearing the matter on remand by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court vide (2019) 4 SCC 357 made the

following Order on 03.02.2021:

“7. The said writ application was disposed of on

06.05.2004.

In paragraph-4 of the said order, it has been

observed as follows:

„In respect of work charged establishment the

Government of Orissa vide Finance Department

Office Memorandum No.5483/F dated 6th March,

1990 decided that consequent upon absorption of

work charged employees in the corresponding post

created in regular establishment, the period of

service rendered by him in Work-Charged

Establishment, shall count towards pensionary

benefits under the Orissa Pension Rules, 1977

subject to the condition that the employees so

absorbed should have served continuously for a

minimum period of five years in the Work-Charged

establishment. This decision was not followed by the

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 31 of 75

subordinate authorities. Thus, the fate of the Work-

Charged employees who rendered a quite good

years of service remained in dark. ***‟

Accordingly the said writ application was allowed

and direction was given to absorb the petitioner in

any establishment post from the time he completed

five years continuous service till the date he retired

from service and thereafter his pension and other

pensionary benefits shall be granted on the basis of

notional fixation of pay in regular establishment as

has been granted to the applicants in O.A. No. 622

of 1999 and other cases as reflected in the said

order of this Court. The order passed by this Court,

was confirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.

5575 of 2007 dated 22.07.2015.

8. Such was the issue in case of one Narusu Pradhan,

a work charged employee, wherein after the order

passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in S.L.P No.

22498 of 2012, the authorities passed an office

order on 08.05.2013 by creating supernumerary

post, regularized his service for the purpose of

sanctioning pension.

9. This Court had also occasion to deal with this issue

again in W.P.(C) No. 1534 of 2008, i.e. in the case of

State of Orissa and others Vrs. Jyostna Rani Patnaik

and others, wherein direction of the Tribunal to

regularize the service of the applicant‟s husband by

way of creating a supernumerary post, if necessary

from the time he had completed 5 years of service as

work-charged employee by bringing him over to

regular establishment was challenged before this

Court by the State authorities. The said case was

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 32 of 75

disposed of vide judgment dated 19.12.2016,

affirming the view expressed by the Tribunal.

***

13. It was also brought to the notice of this Court about

the order dated 02.04.2018 passed in OJC No.

12017 of 2000, wherein it has been observed/

directed as follow:

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal of the record, more particularly the order

impugned herein, it appears that the Government in

Finance Department vide resolution dated

22.01.1965 decided for absorption of such

employees to regular establishment after completion

of five years in the Work Charged Establishment.

Subsequently vide memorandum dated 06.03.1990,

Finance Department has also extended the

pensionary benefit to work charged employees.

Learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 2389 of 1997 vide

order dated 23.02.1999 has already disposed of a

case of similar nature. Even learned Tribunal has

gone on to adjudicate one dispute in O.A. No. 1819

of 1996 regarding extension of pensionary benefit to

such work charged employees, who have already

retired. The plea of Additional Government Advocate

to the effect that the opposite party could not have

been brought over to regular establishment, as there

was no vacancy, is not sustainable in law, as it has

already been held in a catena of decisions that even

if there is no clear vacancy, a work charged

employee can be brought over to regular

establishment for at least one day by creating a

supernumerary post to make him entitled for

pensionary benefit.

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 33 of 75

In view of the above, we modify the order of learned

Tribunal to the extent that the opposite party shall

be brought over to the regular establishment for at

least one day by creating a supernumerary post, if

necessary and accordingly, he shall be extended

with the pensionary benefit as would be admissible

to him. The entire exercise shall be completed within

a period of two months hence.

14. It was also contended that relying on such decision,

may other writ petitions, such as OJC No. 12017 of

2000 (decided on 16.04.2019), W.P.(C) No. 12017 of

2000 (decided on 16.04.2019) have also been

disposed of.

15. While dealing with the matter, this Court deprecates

the action of the State-opposite parties. The State-

opposite parties have not fair enough to comply the

directions given by the Hon‟ble Apex as indicated

above and has only dragging such employees into

multiple litigations. The State-authorities are also

misleading this Court as well the Hon‟ble Apex Court

on each and every occasions in case of such types of

work-charged employees, in spite of law settled in

this regard and as well as specific

circulars/resolutions/ orders have been passed by

the State Authorities in terms of the direction of this

Court.”

The said matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India again in SLP(C) No. 21180 of 2021 [State of

Odisha & Ors. Vrs. Chandra Nandi] by the State of

Odisha, which came to be disposed of on 06.05.2022

with the following order:

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 34 of 75

“1 In the facts and circumstances of the present case,

we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave

Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.

2 The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

3 However, the question of law is kept open to be

resolved in an appropriate case.

4 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”

6.8. It is held in Khoday Distilleries Limited Vrs. Sri

Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited,

(2019) 4 SCC 376, as follows:

“26. From a cumulative reading of the various judgments,

we sum up the legal position as under:

26.1. The conclusions rendered by the three Judge Bench

of this Court in Kunhayammed [Kunhayammed Vrs.

State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359] and summed up

in paragraph 44 are affirmed and reiterated.

26.2. We reiterate the conclusions relevant for these cases

as under:

„(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may

be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In

either case it does not attract the doctrine of

merger. An order refusing special leave to

appeal does not stand substituted in place of

the order under challenge. All that it means is

that the Court was not inclined to exercise its

discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed.

(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a

speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 35 of 75

the grant of leave, then the order has two

implications. Firstly, the statement of law

contained in the order is a declaration of law

by the Supreme Court within the meaning of

Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other

than the declaration of law, whatever is stated

in the order are the findings recorded by the

Supreme Court which would bind the parties

thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority

in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way

of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being

the Apex Court of the country. But, this does

not amount to saying that the order of the

court, tribunal or authority below has stood

merged in the order of the Supreme Court

rejecting the special leave petition or that the

order of the Supreme Court is the only order

binding as res judicata in subsequent

proceedings between the parties.

(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and

appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has

been invoked the order passed in appeal would

attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be

of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.

(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a

petition seeking leave to appeal having been

converted into an appeal before the Supreme

Court the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain

a review petition is lost thereafter as provided

by sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC.‟***”

6.9. It may also be relevant to have regard to the following

principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 36 of 75

High Court at Hyderabad in the case of Koduru Venka

Reddy Vrs. The Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue

Divisional Officer, Kavali, 1983 SCC OnLine AP 232 =

(1994) 1 ALT 227 (DB) = (1988) 63 Comp Cas 376 =

(1987) 67 STC 424 = (1988) 170 ITR 15 = (1988) 72 FJR

166 with regard to binding effect of judgment of High

Court:

“3. We are of the view that when a judgment of the High

Court is the subject-matter of an appeal and the said

judgment is suspended, the only effect of such

suspension is that that judgment cannot be executed

or implemented. But so long as the Full Bench

judgment stands, the dicta laid down therein is

binding on all Courts including Single Judges and

Division Benches of this Court. The dicta laid down

therein cannot be ignored unless the Court after

hearing a particular case doubts the correctness of

the dicta and thinks it appropriate that it should be

reconsidered. ***”

6.10. Applicability of parity and consistency in approach has

been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

in Radhasoami Satsang Vrs. CIT, (1992) 1 SCC 659. After

referring to said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vrs. Union of India, (2006)

3 SCC 1 = 2006 SCC OnLine SC 258 laid down as follows:

“20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res

judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax

for different assessment years because res judicata

applies to debar courts from entertaining issues on

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 37 of 75

the same cause of action whereas the cause of

action for each assessment year is distinct. The

courts will generally adopt an earlier pronouncement

of the law or a conclusion of fact unless there is a

new ground urged or a material change in the

factual position. The reason why the courts have

held parties to the opinion expressed in a decision in

one assessment year to the same opinion in a

subsequent year is not because of any principle of

res judicata but because of the theory of precedent

or the precedential value of the earlier

pronouncement. Where facts and law in a

subsequent assessment year are the same, no

authority whether quasi-judicial or judicial can

generally be permitted to take a different view. This

mandate is subject only to the usual gateways of

distinguishing the earlier decision or where the

earlier decision is per incuriam. However, these are

fetters only on a coordinate Bench which, failing the

possibility of availing of either of these gateways,

may yet differ with the view expressed and refer the

matter to a Bench of superior strength or in some

cases to a Bench of superior jurisdiction.”

6.11. Looking at the present matter in the above perspective, it

can be safely said that this Court has been consistently

taking view that long years of service rendered by lowly

paid employees like NMRs and DLRs are required to be

considered sympathetically for regularization and they

are entitled to pensionary and other retiral benefits. The

State has been accepting the view expressed by this

Court on earlier occasion in respect of many NMR/DLR

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 38 of 75

employees. On the same principle it is required to accept

the present matter in order to maintain consistency.

6.12. It may not be out of place to have regard to the fact as

submitted at the Bar that in the context of entitlement of

pension of a Watchman who was brought over to Work-

Charged Establishment this Court in Debendranath

Sahoo Vrs. State of Odisha and others, WPC(OA) No.1791

of 2017, reported at (2022) III ILR-CUT 282 directed the

authority concerned to consider extension of the benefit

of pension to such employee. It is conceded by counsel

appearing for both the sides that said judgment has not

been challenged before any higher forum. Thus this

Court finds force in the submission of Sri Mihir Kanta

Rath learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that

the relief granted in the said reported case can be

extended to the instant petitioner on the anvil of Article

14 of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

subsequent to State of Karnataka and others Vrs.

Umadevi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806, in many other

cases as detailed hereunder, the Courts have considered

regularization in service considering length period of

service rendered by Contractual/DLR/NMR employees.

Vide Judgment dated 18.08.2025 rendered in Sudhansu

Sekhar Dash Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.15128 of

2022, this Court referred to Narendra Kumar Tiwari Vrs.

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 39 of 75

State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238; Sunil Barik Vrs.

State of Odisha, 2021 (II) OLR 469; State of Jammu and

Kashmir Vrs. District Bar Association, Bandipora, (2017)

3 SCC 410; Suvendu Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha, 2015

SCC OnLine Ori 267; Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra Vrs.

State of Odisha, (2014) 4 SCC 583 = AIR 2014 SC 1716;

Subrata Narayan Das Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C)

No.18659 of 2016, vide Judgment dated 12.07.2022;

Union of India Vrs. Central Administrative Tribunal,

(2019) 4 SCC 290; Vibhuti Shankar Pandey Vrs. State of

Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 91 = (2023) 3 SCC

639; Ranjeet Kumar Das Vrs. State of Odisha, 2018 (I)

ILR-CUT 695; Jaggo Vrs. Union of India, 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 3826; Shripal Vrs. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 221; Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage

Board Vrs. Bijay Kumar Samal, W.A. No.857 of 2024 &

Batch, vide Judgment dated 30.07.2025; Rajendra Kumar

Nayak Vrs. Odisha Minining Corporation, 2017 (II) ILR-

CUT 912; Dr. Prasana Kumar Mishra Vrs. State of Odisha,

2016 (I) ILR-CUT 373; Ramesh Chandra Mohapatra Vrs.

State of Odisha, 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 2587, and directed

the authorities to consider the long period of service

rendered by the employees in order to regularize their

services.

7.1. By posing a question “Whether the action/inaction of the

respondent-State in not recognizing the appellants‟

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 40 of 75

continuous service for the purpose of regularization is

arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India?” in Bhola Nath Vrs. State of Jharkhand, 2026

LiveLaw (SC) 95, it has been discussed as follows:

“11. At the outset, we find it necessary to express our

disapproval of the manner in which the High Court

has approached the present lis. The controversy

before the Court was not one of mere acquiescence

or implied waiver of rights. The High Court, in our

view, has proceeded on a mechanical application of

precedents without engaging with the core

constitutional issues involved, thereby reducing the

dispute to one of acceptance of contractual terms,

divorced from its larger constitutional context.

11.1. This Court has consistently held that the State,

being a model employer, is saddled with a

heightened obligation in the discharge of its

functions. A model employer is expected to act with

high probity, fairness and candour, and bears a

social responsibility to treat its employees in a

manner that preserves their dignity. The State

cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to

take advantage of their vulnerability, helplessness

or unequal bargaining position.

11.2. It therefore follows that the State is required to

exercise heightened caution in its role as an

employer, the constitutional mandate casting upon it

a strict obligation to act as a model employer, an

obligation from which no exception can be

countenanced.

***

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 41 of 75

13. Another facet requiring consideration in the case of

contractual employees, such as the present

appellants, is the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

Where employees have continued to discharge their

duties on contractual posts for a considerable length

of time, as in the present case, it is but natural that

a legitimate expectation arises that the State would,

at some stage, recognize their long and continuous

service. It is in this belief, bolstered by repeated

extensions granted by the Executive, that such

employees continue in service and refrain from

seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding

the contractual nature of their engagement. At this

juncture, it is thus apposite to advert to the

principles governing the doctrine of legitimate

expectation as enunciated by this Court in Army

Welfare Education Society Vrs. Sunil Kumar Sharma,

(2024) 16 SCC 598 wherein it was held as follows:

„63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings

forth the following features regarding the

doctrine of legitimate expectation:

63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based on

a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or

anticipation;

63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise

either from an express or implied promise; or a

consistent past practice or custom followed by

an authority in its dealings;

63.5. Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the

realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate

action can be taken only when a public

authority breaches a promise or deviates from

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 42 of 75

a consistent past practice, without any

reasonable basis.

64. The aforesaid features, although not

exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help us

in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of

legitimate expectation to the facts of the case at

hand. It is clear that legitimate expectation,

jurisprudentially, was a device created in order

to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State

action. It does not extend to and cannot govern

the operation of contracts between private

parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory

estoppel holds the field.‟

It is, therefore, not difficult to comprehend the

expectation with which such contractual employees

continue in the service of the State. The repeated

conduct of the employer-State in expressing

confidence in their performance and consistently

granting monetary upgrades & tenure extensions

reasonably nurtures an expectation that their long

and continuous service would receive further

recognition.

13.1. Another Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka

Vrs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 cautioned that the

doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot ordinarily

be extended to persons whose appointments are

temporary, casual or contractual in nature. The

relevant extract of the judgment reads as follows:

„47. When a person enters a temporary employment

or gets engagement as a contractual or casual

worker and the engagement is not based on a

proper selection as recognised by the relevant

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 43 of 75

rules or procedure, he is aware of the

consequences of the appointment being

temporary, casual or contractual in nature.

Such a person cannot invoke the theory of

legitimate expectation for being confirmed in

the post when an appointment to the post could

be made only by following a proper procedure

for selection and in cases concerned, in

consultation with the Public Service

Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate

expectation cannot be successfully advanced

by temporary, contractual or casual employees.

It cannot also be held that the State has held

out any promise while engaging these persons

either to continue them where they are or to

make them permanent. The State cannot

constitutionally make such a promise. It is also

obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to

seek a positive relief of being made permanent

in the post.‟

However, this Court in Umadevi (supra) clarified that

the bar against invocation of the doctrine of

legitimate expectation applies only to those

temporary, contractual or casual employees whose

engagement was not preceded by a proper selection

process in accordance with the extant rules.

Consequently, where such engagement is made

after following a due and lawful selection procedure,

there is no absolute bar in law preventing such

employees from invoking the doctrine of legitimate

expectation.

***

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 44 of 75

13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had

engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned

posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the

end of the year 2022 that the respondents

communicated that no further extension of the

appellants‟ engagement was likely to be granted.

13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is not

only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear

derogation of the equality principles enshrined in

Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State

initially engaged the appellants in their youth to

discharge public duties and functions. Having

rendered long and dedicated service, the appellants

cannot now be left to fend for themselves,

particularly when the employment opportunities that

may have been available to them a decade ago are

no longer accessible owing to age constraints.

13.4. We are unable to discern any rational basis for the

respondent-State‟s decision to discontinue the

appellants after nearly ten years of continuous

service. We are conscious that the symbiotic-

relationship between the appellants and the

respondent-State was mutually beneficial, the State

derived the advantage of the appellants‟ experience

and institutional familiarity, while the appellants

remained in public service. In such circumstances,

any departure from a long-standing practice of

renewal, particularly one that frustrates the

legitimate expectation of the employees, ought to be

supported by cogent reasons recorded in a speaking

order.

13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and

reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 45 of 75

discharged his duties over several years and has

been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight,

be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable

to accept the justification advanced by the

respondents as the obligation of the State, as a

model employer, extends to fair treatment of its

employees irrespective of whether their engagement

is contractual or regular.

13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the

practice adopted by States of engaging employees

under the nominal labe ls of “part-time”,

“contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and

thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their

positions. In Jaggo Vrs. Union of India, 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 3826 this Court underscored that

Government departments must lead by example in

ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved

the test of examining whether the duties performed

by such temporary employees are integral to the

day-to-day functioning of the organization.

13.7. In Shripal Vrs. Nagar Nigam, 2025 SCC OnLine SC

221 and Vinod Kumar Vrs. Union of India, (2024) 9

SCC 327 this Court cautioned against a mechanical

and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny

regularization to temporary employees in the

absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi

(supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise

exploitative engagements continued for years

without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court

further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a

distinction between appointments that are “illegal”

and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 46 of 75

being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of

the prescribed conditions.

13.8. In Dharam Singh Vrs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 1735, this Court strongly deprecated the

culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their

capacity as employers. The Court criticised the

practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment

as a means to evade regular employment

obligations, observing that such measures

perpetuate precarious working conditions while

circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices.

13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time

employees, such as the appellants, constitute an

integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery

of the State continues to function. They are not

merely ancillary to the system, but form essential

components thereof. The equality mandate of our

Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be

reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness,

ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the

careers and livelihood of such part-time and

contractual employees are guided by fairness and

reason.

13.10.In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to

persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State‟s

contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of

the appellants‟ engagement denudes them of

constitutional protection. The State, having availed of

the appellants‟ services on sanctioned posts for over

a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and

having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory

performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent

reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 47 of 75

such engagement by taking refuge behind formal

contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly

arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the

State to act as a model employer, and fails to

withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the

Constitution.”

7.2. This Court feels it apt to refer to the case of Amarkant

Rai Vrs. State of Bihar, (2015) 8 SCC 265. In this case

the appellant therein was temporarily appointed in Class

IV post of night guard by Principal of College who was

not competent authority to make such appointment. The

appellant served on said post for 29 years on daily wage

basis. The appointment of appellant was done out of

necessity and concern for college, and duly intimated to

the University in 1988. No issue was raised by the

University pertaining to appointment of appellant as

ultra vires the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Under

such premises, it was held that the appointment of

appellant cannot be termed as illegal but was only

irregular. It has further been observed in the said

reported case as follows:

“12. Applying the ratio of Umadevi‟s case, this Court in

Nihal Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of Punjab & Ors.,

(2013) 14 SCC 65 directed the absorption of the

Special Police Officers in the services of the State of

Punjab holding as under:

„35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the

need for creation of the posts is a relevant

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 48 of 75

factor with reference to which the executive

Government is required to take rational

decision based on relevant consideration. In

our opinion, when the facts such as the ones

obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that

there is need for the creation of posts, the

failure of the executive government to apply its

mind and take a decision to create posts or

stop extracting work from persons such as the

appellants herein for decades together itself

would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part

of the State.‟

13. In our view, the exception carved out in para 53 of

Umadevi is applicable to the facts of the present

case. There is no material placed on record by the

respondents that the appellant has been lacking any

qualification or bear any blemish record during his

employment for over two decades. It is pertinent to

note that services of similarly situated persons on

daily wages for regularization viz. one Yatindra

Kumar Mishra who was appointed on daily wages

on the post of Clerk was regularized w.e.f. 1987.

The appellant although initially working against

unsanctioned post, the appellant was working

continuously since 03.1.2002 against sanctioned

post. Since there is no material placed on record

regarding the details whether any other night guard

was appointed against the sanctioned post, in the

facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined

to award monetary benefits be paid from

01.01.2010.

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

that the appellant has served the University for more

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 49 of 75

than 29 years on the post of night guard and that he

has served the College on daily wages, in the

interest of justice, the authorities are directed to

regularize the services of the appellant

retrospectively with effect from 03.01.2002 (the date

on which he joined the post as per the direction of

the Registrar).”

7.3. The present case apparently turns on better footing

inasmuch as the facts and circumstances discussed

above does not reveal nor can it be said that the

appointment of the petitioner was irregular much less

illegal. Pertinent feature in the present case akin to that

obtained in the case of Amarkant Rai (supra) is that

there is no material placed on record regarding the

details whether any other Watchman was appointed

against the sanctioned post, in the facts and

circumstances of the case. In the case at hand the

authority has utilized the service of the petitioner for

around 31 years since 1984. Furthermore, the name of

the petitioner found place at Serial No.1 against the post

“Watchman (Unskilled)” under “General Category” in the

“Detailed Seniority List of NMR/DLR Employees Working

under Rural Works Division, Kendrapara” (Annexure-4)

and his service has been reckoned with effect from

“01.07.1984 in line with fixation of assumed date of

birth when year of birth is declared”, being an engagee

prior to 12.04.1993 (Annexure-A/3 enclosed with

counter affidavit).

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 50 of 75

7.4. No reply or answer is placed nor is there any objection

set up on record by the opposite parties with respect to

discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner. It

is affirmed in said paragraph of the counter affidavit

that:

“That the petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ

application to declare the action of the opposite parties in

bringing over the petitioner to the work charged

establishment as per order dated 25.02.2012 under

Annexure-8 instead of regularising the services of the

petitioner in terms of Annexure-9 and the regularisation of

similarly situated DLRs working in different division of

Works Department as illegal. The petitioner has also

prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to regularise

the services of the petitioner in terms of Annexure-9 and

similar orders passed by different divisions coming under

Works Department i.e. from the year 1998 within a

stipulated period and to extend all service and financial

benefits on such regularisation of the petitioner from the

year 1998 till his retirement within a stipulated period.”

7.5. This Court finds only objection at paragraph 9 that “the

petitioner in compliance to the letter under Annexure-5

submitted his reply under Annexure-6, but he failed to

submit any conclusive/satisfactory proof with regard to

his actual date of engagement”. At paragraph 10 of the

counter affidavit the opposite parties simply rested

burden of proof on the employee by stating thus:

“*** the petitioner in spite of intimation and opportunity

failed to provide any records establishing the actual date

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 51 of 75

of his engagement, the name of the petitioner was not

considered by the Government to bring his service under

the Work-Charged Establishment from 11.02.2011 though

other DLRs got the same benefit. Because of the direction

of the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.814(C) of 2011 filed by

the petitioner, the opposite party No.3 again reviewed the

matter and the petitioner was engaged. On such

verification/enquiry, the opposite party No.3 came to

know that the petitioner was engaged by ways of transfer

of his service from the Expressway Division, Kendrapara.

Taking into account such transfer of service, the initial

date of engagement of the petitioner was accepted and

recommended by the opposite party No.3 to the opposite

party No.2 to accept it to be with effect from 01.07.1984

as per report vide Letter under Annexure-A/3”.

7.6. This Court strongly disapproves such a stance taken by

the employer-opposite party No.3 (Executive Engineer,

Rural Works Division, Kendrapara. The authority

concerned could have easily verified and ascertained the

actual date of engagement by calling for record relating

to his engagement as DLR from the Office of Expressway

Division, Kendrapara within the same locality/area. The

model employer should have acted pragmatically and

instead of putting the blame on the employee, a

Watchman, being custodian of official records the

opposite parties should have taken much care to verify

relevant records maintained by them. On the one hand

the opposite parties admitted transfer of the petitioner to

Rural Works Division in the year 1991 and reckoned

01.07.1984 as the entry into service as DLR prior to

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 52 of 75

joining in the transferred place. There is no dispute that

his service was required to be regularized being engagee

prior to 12.04.1993. Because he was brought over to

Work-Charged Establishment by Letter in Memo No.331,

dated 25.02.2012 issued by the Executive Engineer,

Rural Works Division, Kendrapara, the petitioner is not

extended the pensionary benefit as he got retired on

attaining age of superannuation with effect from

28.02.2015.

7.7. This Court considered entitlement of Work-Charged

employee to pensionary benefit in the case of State of

Odisha Vrs. Jugal Kishore Sahoo, OJC No. 12017 of

2000, disposed of on 16.04.2019. This Court has been

pleased to confirm the Order passed by the Odisha

Administrative Tribunal by observing thus:

“2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners

Department have challenged the judgment/order

dated 11.05.2000, passed by the Orissa

Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, in O.A.

No.2217 of 1999 under Annexure-1, directing the

opposite party No.2 therein to sanction the pension

and all pensionary benefits to which the applicant

opposite party No.1 is entitled to in terms of the

resolution of the Government within three month

from the date of receipt of order.

3. We have perused the impugned order in detail.

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 53 of 75

4. Considering the submissions made and keeping in

view the fact that the issue involved in the present

case is squarely covered by the order dated

02.04.2018, passed by this Court in OJC No.8149 of

2000, wherein the Work-Charged employee,

similarly situated to the present applicant-opposite

party No.1 in this case, was directed to be brought

over to the regular establishment for at least one day

by creating a supernumerary post, if necessary and

accordingly, he should be extended with the

pensionary benefit as would be admissible to him,

the applicant-opposite party No.1 shall be extended

the pensionary benefit as would be admissible to

him as per the law settled by this Court on the date

on which he attained superannuation. For ready

reference, the said order dated 02.04.2018 is

reproduced hereunder:

„This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the

State Government and its functionaries challenging

the legality, validity and correctness of O.J.C. No.

12017 of 2000 order dated 14.10.1999 passed by

the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,

Bhubaneswar in O.A. NO.1920 of 1999. Fact in nut

shell giving rise to filing of the present writ petition is

that though the opposite party was initially

appointed on 01.02.1964 in the Work Charged

Establishment under Water Resources Department

and continued as such till his retirement on

31.03.1997, his services was not brought over to

regular establishment. It was his case before

learned Tribunal that pursuant to resolution of the

Finance Department dated 22.01.1965, after

completion of five years from the date of entry in the

Work-Charged Establishment he should have been

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 54 of 75

regularized in service. Due to inaction of the

authorities, he has been deprived of his pensionary

benefits. Learned Additional Government Advocate

for the petitioners-State submits that though

Government in Finance Department vide resolution

dated 22.01.1965 decided for absorption of such

employees to regular establishment after completion

of five years in the Work-Charged Establishment, it

has no application to the case of the opposite party

as the job in which the opposite party was engaged

was not permanent in nature. Moreover, the opposite

party being a Work-Charged employee is governed

under Work-Charged Employee (Appointment and

Conditions of Service) Instruction, 1974, which only

provides gratuity to such employees. Having heard

learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of

record, more particularly the order impugned herein,

it appears that the Government in Finance

Department vide resolution dated 22.01.1965

decided for absorption of such employees to regular

establishment after completion of five years in the

Work-Charged Establishment. Subsequently, vide

memorandum dated 06.03.1990, Finance

Department has also extended the pensionary

benefit to Work-Charged employees. Learned

Tribunal in O.A. No. 2389 of 1997 vide order dated

23.02.1999 has already disposed of a case of

similar nature. Even learned Tribunal has gone on to

adjudicate one dispute in O.A. No. 1819 of 1996

regarding extension of pensionary benefit to such

Work-Charged employees, who have already retired.

The plea of Additional Government Advocate to the

effect that the opposite party could not have been

brought over to regular establishment, as there was

no vacancy, is not sustainable in law, as it has

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 55 of 75

already been held in a catena of decisions that even

if there is no clear vacancy, a work charged

employee can be brought over to regular

establishment for at least one day by creating a

supernumerary post to make him entitled for

pensionary benefit. In view of the above, we modify

the order of learned Tribunal to the extent that

opposite party shall be brought over to the regular

establishment for at least one day by creating a

supernumerary post, if necessary and accordingly,

he shall be extended with the pensionary benefit as

would be admissible to him. The entire exercise shall

be completed within a period of two months hence.

With the aforesaid modification in the impugned

order, the writ petition is disposed of.‟

5. In view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition

in terms of the order quoted above. Accordingly, the

same is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.

6. The arrears dues of the applicant will be cleared

within a period of four months from today and if it is

not done so, the applicant-opposite party No.1 will

be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum.”

7.8. In the case of State of Odisha Vrs. Chaitantya Gouda,

2001 SCC OnLine Ori 131, this Court came to observe as

follows in the case of Work-Charged employee who were

not extended the benefit of pensionary benefit:

“1. Opposite parties 1, 2 and 5 are working as work-

charged employees from the year 1969, 1964 and

1963 respectively, whereas opp. parties 3 and 4

retired as Work-Charged employees after having

worked from 1962 and 1965 respectively in the

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 56 of 75

establishment in question. No pensionary benefits

having been extended, they approached the Orissa

Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar by way of

Original Application No. 622 of 1999 for a direction

to the Respondents to grant them retirement and

other benefits by declaring them to be regular

employees.

2. By following decision in a batch of cases, the

Tribunal allowed the Original Application in the

following terms:

„I accordingly direct that the applicants shall be

absorbed in any establishment posts from the time

they completed five years continuous service till the

date when they retired from service. After such

absorption, their pension and other pensionary

benefits shall be computed on the basis of the

notional fixation of pay in the regular establishment

by adding annual increments which fell due and

also taking into account various revisions of pay

scales that were introduced. The process shall be

completed within three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly the

Original Application is allowed.‟

3. Aggrieved therewith the State has preferred this writ

petition.

4. Having heard learned counsel, we find no ground to

interfere with the impugned order in view of the fact

that the matter in dispute already stand concluded

by two decisions of this Court in State of Orissa Vrs.

Juma Parida (O.J.C. No. 1162 of 1999, decided on

10.05.2000) and State of Orissa Vrs. Sudarsan

Sahu (O.J.C. No. 11028 of 1999 decided on

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 57 of 75

25.11.1999) in which similar challenge to the order

of the Tribunal was made.

5. Admittedly opp. parties 1 to 5 rendered their

valuable services and considering this and in the

light of the decision of the Apex Court in SLP No.

11929-930 of 1998 the impugned direction was

issued.

6. Hence we are of the view that no illegality has been

committed by the Tribunal in its order.

7. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed.

8. Application Dismissed.”

7.9. Regard may be had to the following view of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India expressed in the case of State of

Orissa and others Vrs. Brindaban Behera (Dead) By Lrs.

etc., Civil Appeal No.5575 of 2007, vide Order dated

22.07.2015:

“We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

This appeal by special leave is directed against the

judgment and order dated 6.5.2005 passed by the High

Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (Civil) No.8666

of 2004.

It appears that the respondent was appointed in the year

1963 as Motor Launch Driver under the work charged

establishment, and continuously worked for 34 years in

the work charged establishment. He retired after attaining

the age of 58 years in the year 1997.

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 58 of 75

As against the denial of payment of pension, the

respondent moved the High Court.

Considering the aforesaid finding, the High Court allowed

the Writ Petition and directed that the respondent is

entitled for pension.

In the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in this

appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.”

7.10. It may be pertinent to take note of a Division Bench

decision of this Court rendered in the case of Principal

Secretary to Government, Works Department, Government

of Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others Vrs. Ashok Kumar

Pattanayak and another, W.A. No.975 of 2025, reported

in 2026 SCC OnLine Ori 78. Repelling the contention of

the opponents that since persons in casual employment

or Work-Charged Establishment are not entitled to

pensionary benefits in terms of the Odisha Civil Services

(Pension) Rules, 1992 as the casual employment in

Work-Charged establishment is governed by Executive

Instruction of the Odisha Work-Charged Employee

(Appointment and Condition of Service) Instruction,

1974, it is held as follows:

“4.1. The first contention of learned AGA that the learned

Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition at

the admission stage without giving due opportunity

of participation by filing Counter, is difficult to

countenance. Firstly, no contention of the kind can

be taken without a specific averment to that effect.

What is averred in Ground (B) in the Memorandum of

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 59 of 75

Appeal does not satisfy this requirement, although

we cannot brand it as evasive. Secondly, all the

contentions urged before us in support of the Appeal

were urged before the learned Single Judge, who

treated them in his wisdom, although not to the

satisfaction of Appellants. It is not a case of denying

due opportunity of participation in the proceedings

before learned Single Judge. Therefore, the first

submission does not impress us.

4.2. The second submission that the provisions of Rule 3

read with Rule 18 of 1992 Rules, as amended in

2005, come in the way of pension being granted to

the Respondents, bit difficult to agree with. Such a

contention was taken up in Panigrahi supra and in

an avalanche of cases; the same came to be

negatived and resultantly terminal benefits like

pension came to be granted to all other similarly

circumstanced employees, as contended by Mr.

Mishra. Matter was carried further to the portals of

Apex Court and the challenge was laid to rest in SLP

(C) Diary No(s).50364 of 2023 disposed off on

02.01.2024, whereby imprimatur was accorded to

the Division Bench judgment. Therefore, the second

submission also falls to the ground.

4.3. There is also force in the submission of learned Sr.

Advocate Mr. Mishra that when the State has

already granted terminal benefits like pension, etc.

under the provisions of 1992 Rules post 2005

amendment, would carve out a class within the

class of pensioners, which falls foul of D.S. Nakara

Jurisprudence. It is not disputed before us by the

AGA that all other similarly circumstanced

employees, who had litigated before this Court

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 60 of 75

successfully, have been granted pensionary benefits

under the 1992 Rules, of course mutatis mutandis.

If that be so, what justification the State has to

adopt a step-motherly attitude for the poor

Respondents herein, remains un-understandable. In

C. Lalitha supra, Hon‟ble Supreme Court deprecated

the culpable conduct of State in driving a set of

employees to the avoidable legal battle, when other

similarly circumstanced set had emerged victorious

in the litigation.

4.4. It hardly needs to be stated that the State, being a

Model Employer, vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika

Vrs. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234, should have

on its own extended the benefits of decision in

Panigrahi supra. That course would have saved

public time of the Court and private time of the

litigants, when pendency of cases is mounting up.

This Court notes it with penury at heart that several

unworthy cases are filed before Writ Courts even

when debatable issues have already been laid to

rest at the level of Apex Court of the country. Which

section of the bureaucracy prompts filing of cases of

the kind, remains a riddle wrapped in enigma. Such

a tendency on the part of State and its

instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution

of India, needs to be checked and sooner it is done,

better it will be. Otherwise, the objects of

constitutionally ordained welfare State would be

defeated to the detriment of citizens.”

7.11. So far as discriminatory treatment is concerned, in

Ratnank Mishra Vrs. High Court of Judicature at

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 61 of 75

Allahabad, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1237 it has been held

that:

“29. High Courts, being Constitutional Courts entrusted

to uphold equality and fairness, are expected to

encompass such principles within their own

administrative functioning as well, and must

exemplify the standards of a model employer. Such

principles are at the risk of being undermined when

discriminatory treatment is meted out to employees

similarly situated within the same establishment.

Such actions pose grave threat to the sacrosanct

principles of non-arbitrariness and reasonableness

as enshrined under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the

Constitution of India.

30. In light of the above discussion, we are of the

opinion that the Appellants have been caused grave

prejudice by the Respondents, in respect of rejection

of their representations for regularization, though

similarly placed employees have been granted the

same, without there being any reasonable

distinction between them.

31. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the

Respondent also submitted that the post on which

the Appellants were appointed, i.e. „Routine Grade

Clerk‟, is now a dead cadre and it has merged with

the post of „Computer Assistants‟ as per the

Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions

of Service and Conduct) (Amendment) Rules, 2019

which requires computer qualifications and

knowledge, i.e. data entry, word processing, etc.,

therefore direction for regularization cannot be

issued. In our view, such argument is also not fair

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 62 of 75

and reasonable in particular, looking to the report of

the Committee, as a result of which, similarly

situated persons were granted the benefit of

regularization after one year from their date of their

initial appointment while also extending the benefit

of promotion. Once, as per the discussion made

hereinabove, it has been found that the distinction

drawn between Category A, B and C employees is

not based on any reasonable classification or

intelligible differentia, denial of similar relief to the

Appellants on the pretext of subsequent amendment

in the rules, is not acceptable.

32. It has also been argued by the Respondent that the

Division Bench judgment dated 20.09.2011 has

been effectively overruled by the judgment of the full

bench of the High Court in In Re: Regularization of

Class IV Employees of the High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad, 2013:AHC:179951-FB. Without going

into the merits of this submission, there is no

gainsaying that the genesis of the discrimination

which has been meted out to the Appellants can be

traced back to the report of the Committee way back

in the year 2012. The artificial distinction drawn

between the Appellants and other similarly situated

employees is the discrimination which must be

weeded out in pursuit of justice. It has further been

informed that the services of the Appellants have

been dispensed with by the High Court with

immediate effect vide order dated 15.09.2015 of the

Registrar General, and for this reason also it has

been contended that they are not entitled for

regularization. In our considered opinion, once we

have taken a view that the judgment passed by the

High Court denying relief of regularization was not

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 63 of 75

in accordance with law, such a submission does not

hold water particularly in light of the manifest

discrimination which is palpably clear and evinced

from the record.

33. While we are cognizant of the fact that ordinarily

regularization is a matter best left to policy decisions

of the employer, and courts must exercise restraint

in issuing directions. However, the present case is

exceptional. The Appellants have rendered over a

decade of service. Numerous similarly placed

employees who were employed through same

channel of appointment have been regularized.

Therefore, with a view to render complete justice in

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present

case, in our view, this is a fit case for exercising our

inherent powers under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India to issue final operative

directions.”

7.12. In Raman Kumar Vrs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine

SC 1018 in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution

of India the following observation is made:

“8. Indisputably, the appellants herein have completed

service of more than ten years. Even this Court in

the case of Ravi Verma Vrs. Union of India (Civil

Appeal No(s).2795-2796 of 2018) decided on

13.03.2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 3860] found that

the act of regularizing the services of some

employees and not regularizing the services of the

others is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of

the Constitution of India.

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 64 of 75

9. Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor

General of India appearing on behalf of the

respondents, has vehemently opposed the petition.

She submits that since posts were not available,

and, thereafter, Group „D‟ posts have been

abolished, the appellants could not have been

regularized.

10. We are not inclined to accept the submission on

behalf of the respondents. When the Chief

Commissioner of Income Tax has himself found that

65 persons were entitled to be regularized, the act of

regularizing the services of only 35 employees and

not regularizing the services of other employees,

including the appellants, is patently discriminatory

and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India.

11. In that view of the matter, we find that the High

Court was in error in not entertaining the contempt

petition. However, at this stage, relegating the

appellants again to the High Court would

unnecessarily cause delay in delivering justice to the

appellants.”

7.13. The following observation of this Court made in State of

Odisha Vrs. Arun Kumar Nath, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori

2696 is noteworthy:

“1. The respondents in the instant appeal have been

knocking the doors of the Court in pursuit of justice

founded upon the concept of equality and the

fraternity amongst the homogeneous class, yet their

claim for the right on equalities is a far cry. Some of

the similarly circumstanced persons, who had

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 65 of 75

approached the Court flagging the identical and the

similar issues, received the just justice, yet the

respondents are thriving for an equality right and

equal treatment before the Court of law. It is no

gainsaying that the adherence of rule of equality in a

public employment is conceded as a basic feature of

our Constitution as the certainty is a virtue. The

primary object perceived by our forefathers while

giving the Constitution is to bring an equality

amongst the citizens of the country and equal

treatment in juxtaposition with the rule of law and in

this regard, the doctrine of equality is, in effect, the

heart and soul of the Constitution.

2. The adherence of the equality principles not only

helps the citizens to reach to a highest potential but

also inculcates the sense of justice at par with the

equally circumstanced persons. It is not an arid

principle finding a space in the Constitution but

erodes the differential treatment amongst the equals.

It is, thus, a necessary corollary to the concept of

rule of law envisioned by the framers of the law and

bringing the same in reality while occupying a space

in the Constitution.

3. Although the equality is the faith and the aspiration

of a citizenry in a democratic republic, yet its

applicability has to be ensured with great caution

and care, and not in an abstract manner. The

equality amongst the equals is the hallmark of the

doctrine of equality as unequals cannot be treated

equally in the garb of the equality principles.

4. The enlightening observation of Justice P.N.

Bhagwati in Pradeep Jain Vrs. Union of India, (1984)

3 SCC 654 can be aptly applied that “equality must

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 66 of 75

not remain mere idle incantation but it must become

a living reality for the large masses of people.” We

are conscious that the equality principles should not

be applied with the mathematical precision but on

practical inequalities permeating the sense of an

equal treatment vis-a-vis the rule of law, which is

paramount.

5. On the broader concept of equality as embraced in

the Constitution, let us examine the stand of the

State in denying the claim of the respondents in the

perspective of the fact that the persons standing on

the same pedestal having bestowed with the

regularization of their contractual services, whether

the relief can be extended to the present writ

petitioners/respondents.”

7.14. With the above perspicuity of legal contours as

discussed above through various judgments referred to

above, there cannot be gainsaying that the concept of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India would pervade to

support the cause of the “lamb” (DLR employee) and the

mighty model employer (lion) having exploited the

petitioner who worked as Watchman for around 31 years

since 1984 till his date of superannuation on 28.02.2015

cannot now shun its responsibility to provide social

security measure

1. Though the petitioner was brought

1

Article 38 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:

“38. State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people.—

(1) The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and

protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social,

economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.

(2) The State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in income,

and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 67 of 75

over to the Work-Charged Establishment, before

28.02.2015 he should have been brought to the Regular

Establishment for the purpose of getting pensionary

benefit. Glossing through the decisions it is not inept to

say that on earlier occasions by dint of judgments/

orders, as referred to above, the State Government has

extended identical benefit to such DLR or NMR

employees by bringing them to Regular Establishment

notionally for the purpose grant of pensionary benefit.

Conclusion:

8. Before concluding, this Court may have regard to a view

expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India with

respect to grant of pension in favour of the employees

having rendered long years of service to the employer. In

State of Gujarat Vrs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022

SCC OnLine SC 2004 it has been stated as follows:

“1. It is unfortunate that the State continued to take the

services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years

and thereafter now to contend that as the services

rendered by the respondent are ad hoc, he is not

entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State

cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own

wrong. To take the Services continuously for 30

years and thereafter to contend that an employee

who has rendered 30 years continues service shall

not be eligible for pension is nothing but

opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of

people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.”

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 68 of 75

unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such

ought not to have taken such a stand.

2. In the present case, the High Court has not

committed any error in directing the State to pay

pensionary benefits to the respondent who has

retired after rendering more than 30 years service.

3. Hence, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.

4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.”

9. This Court is not oblivious of the provisions contained in

Rule 18 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules,

1992, which read as under:

“18. Conditions subject to which service qualifies.—

(1) Service does not qualify for pension unless it is

rendered in a pensionable establishment/post.

(2) The entire continuous temporary or officiating service

under Government without interruption in the same

post or any other post, shall count for the purpose of

pension in respect of all categories of Government

servants except in the following cases, namely:

(i) Period of service in a non-pensionable

establishment;

(ii) Period of service in the work-charged

establishment;

(iii) Period of service paid from contingencies;

(iv) Where the employee concerned resigns and is

not again appointed to service under

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 69 of 75

Government or is removed/dismissed from

public service;

(v) A probationer who is discharged from service

for failure to pass the prescribed test or

examination;

(vi) Re-employed .pensioner, Government servants

engaged on contract and Government servants

not in whole time employment of Government;

(vii) Service paid from Local Fund or Trust Fund;

(viii) Service in an office paid by fees whether levied

by law or under authority of the Government or

by Commission; and

(ix) Service paid out of the grant in accordance with

Law or Custom.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (i)

and (ii) of sub-rule (2) a person who is initially

appointed by the Government in a Work-Charged

Establishment for a period of five years or more and

is subsequently appointed to the same or another

post in a temporary or substantive capacity in a

pensionable establishment without interruption of

duty, the period of service so rendered in work-

charged establishment shall qualify for pension

under this rule.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1)

Government, may, by general or special order,

prescribe any class of service or post which were

previously born under Work-Charged establishment

or paid from contingencies to be pensionable.

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 70 of 75

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1)

and (2) in case of a Government servant belonging to

Government of India or other State Government on

his permanent transfer to the State Government the

continuous service rendered by him under

pensionable establishment of Government of India or

any other State Government, as the case may be,

shall count as qualifying service for pension.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i) &

(iii) of sub-rule (2), a person who is initially

appointed in a job contract establishment and is

subsequently brought over to the post created under

regular/pensionable establishment, so much of his

job contract service period shall be added to the

period of his qualifying service in regular

establishment and would render him eligible for

pensionary benefits.”

9.1. Though on the date of superannuation, i.e., the

petitioner, DLR employee since 1984 and a Work-

Charged employee discharging duty of Watchman since

1984, considering that he worked for the employer for

around 31 years uninterrupted service with a transfer to

another place in the year 1991, this Court is of the

considered opinion that such employee should have

been regularized in the post which is of perennial

nature. The observation of Division Bench of this Court

in Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vrs. Bijay

Kumar Samal, &c. W.A. No.857 of 2024 etc., vide

Judgment dated 30.07.2025 may be relevant:

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 71 of 75

“6.1. Appellant-Board is constituted under the provisions

of the Orissa Water Supply & Sewerage Board Act,

1991; the Board discharges public functions with

service rendered by Respondent-employees since a

quarter century or so, is not in dispute. It is obvious

that the work in question is perennial in nature and

that these poor employees have been accomplishing

the same with no complaint whatsoever. It is also

not in dispute that the Board, being the employer in

terms of Section 9 of the Act, has engaged the

services of these respondents, there being no regular

recruits, despite its recommendation to the State

Government on several occasions. This being the

position, the Appellant-Board, being an

instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India, has to conduct itself as a

Model Employer, vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika

Vrs. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234. It hardly

needs to be stated that there is Preambular

Socialistic Pattern prescribed by the Constitution

itself and therefore such an instrumentality cannot

take up a stand that runs contrary to the same,

apart from being bereft of elements of justice & fair

play. After all, a Statutory Body like the Appellant-

Board cannot run its ordained functions as East

India Company of bygone era.

6.2. The vehement submission of learned panel counsel

appearing for the Board that the very initial entry of

the respondents to the service is illegal and therefore

no regularization/absorption would have been

granted in terms of Umadevi supra cannot be

acceded to and reasons for this are many: Firstly,

Section 9(1) of the Act says “The Board may appoint

such officers and employees as it considers

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 72 of 75

necessary for the efficient performance of its duties

and discharge of its functions against posts

sanctioned by the State Government.” Secondly, it is

specifically admitted in the statement of objections

filed in the writ petitions that the Board has engaged

the services of these respondents. It is not the contra

case of the Board and it cannot be either, the battle

lines having been drawn up both the sides having

filed their pleadings. It need not be stated that an

admission in the pleadings is a substantive piece of

evidence, if not a sacrosanct one. Therefore, the ratio

in Umadei supra would not come to the aid of

Appellant-Board, initial entry being absolutely legal.

6.3. Illegality is one thing and irregularity is another,

even if arguably they are not polls asunder. At

times, the difference between these two, sages of

law like Fedric Pollock say, more often than not, is in

degrees & not in kind. In a constitutionally ordained

Welfare State its instrumentality like the Board

cannot be permitted to contend that although it made

the appointments in question, the same are marred

by illegality, especially when they are not, for the

reasons already discussed above. Here are

employees who have been shading their sweat, if

not blood, to the soil in the discharge of their

functions for more than twenty five years. Firstly, a

perpetrator of illegality, if at all these appointments

are of the kind, cannot be permitted to take the

advantage of its own illegal act. Secondly, whatever

arguable illegality at the entry level of employment

would diminish year by year and become nil at least

after a quarter century, as a concession to the

shortness of human life. One cannot dig the grave

profitably, the dead having gone with the winds long

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 73 of 75

ago once for all. Therefore, the entry of these

respondents is at the most can be termed as

irregular and therefore Umadevi cannot be chanted

like mantra to defeat their legitimate expectation, if

not right.”

9.2. Regard being had to the views expressed by different

Courts qua the scope for regularization of the DLR/NMR

employees and the entitlement of such employees for

grant of pension albeit they were brought to the Work-

Charged Establishment, it would be unjustified if the

benefit of pension is not granted to the petitioner who

worked on the basis of Daily Labour Roll. The opposite

parties are required to bear in mind that the petitioner

has worked for the employer since 1984 and

subsequently was absorbed and brought over to the

Work-Charged Establishment by Office Order dated

25.02.2012 after having put in around 28 years of

service and allowed to be retired and be “relieved from

Government service” on attaining age of superannuation

on 28.02.2015 by Office Order dated 18.02.2015. As no

objection is raised from the side of the opposite parties

that Letter vide Memo No.1335, dated 21.03.1998 of the

Superintending Engineer, Central Circle, Rural Works,

Bhubaneswar (Annexure -9) reflects there were five

numbers of Sweeper-cum-Night Watchman post lying

vacant, and in this respect no plea is set up by the

opposite parties in their counter affidavit that they have

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 74 of 75

filled up such vacant posts by the time of consideration

the case of the petitioner for regularisation, there was

thus no impediment for them to bring the petitioner over

to the Regular/Pensionable Establishment rather than

the Work-Charged Establishment. In all fairness of the

things, it would be necessary to make observation that

the opposite parties are required to consider bringing the

petitioner to the Regular/Pensionable Establishmen t

notionally for such period as is necessary for qualifying

him to get the pension.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion on facts as well as in

law, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to

the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner

in the light of consistent view expressed by different

Courts in respect of similarly circumstanced employees

and, in consideration of the observation made above,

steps be taken to extend all the benefits and

consequential benefits, as due and admissible to him in

accordance with law.

10.1. Needless to say that the opposite parties shall act

pragmatically by extending the pensionary benefits

keeping in view the decisions referred to supra.

10.2. Entire exercise shall be taken up and concluded within a

period of three months from the date of the receipt of

WPC(OAC) No.3584 of 2014 Page 75 of 75

copy of this Judgment or on production of certified copy

thereof by the petitioner, whichever is earlier.

11. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the

above observations and directions, but in the

circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. As a

result of disposal of the writ petition, all pending

Interlocutory Application(s) shall stand disposed of.

(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN )

JUDGE

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

The 07

th March, 2026//Aswini/MRS/Bichi/Laxmikant