IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C ) No.19538 of 2023

CNR No. ODHC010471712023

In the matter of an application under Article-226 &

227 of the Constitution of India

………………

Narayan Nayak

….

Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha & Another

…. Opposite Parties

For Petitioner : M/s. S.P. Jena,

Advocate

For Opp. Parties : M/s. C.K. Pradhan,

Addl. Govt. Advocate

PRESENT:

THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing: 23.09.2026 & Date of Judgment:23.09.2026

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid

Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode)

// 2 //

Page 2 of 29

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

parties.

3. In spite of due appearance, nobody is there on

behalf of Opp. Party No.2 when the atter was called

yesterday and today also there is no appearance on

behalf of Opp. Party No.2.

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter

alia with the following prayer:

In the light of the facts and circumstances

stated above, it is humbly prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, quashing the order dated

12.08.2022 under Annexure-8.

2. Direct the opposite parties to regularize the

Petitioner’s services a Class-IV employee with all

consequential service benefits, including but not

limited to arrears of pay, pension and other

applicable benefits as per Government norms.

3. Grant all consequential service benefits,

including regularisation of service, seniority and

other privileges entitled to regular employees.

4. Pass any other writ, order, or direction as

this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case.

And for which act of kindness, the Petitioner

shall ever pray.

5. It is contended that Petitioner though was

engaged on daily wage basis w.e.f June, 1987 in the

establishment of Opp. Party No.2, but when he was

illegally disengaged w.e.f 18.10.1995, the matter was

carried to the Labour Court in I.D. Case No.60/1997.

// 3 //

Page 3 of 29

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

contended that the Labour Court vide its award

dtd.29.07.2005 under Annexure-1, while holding the

retrenchment of the Petitioner as illegal, directed for

his re-instatement. Learned Labour Court also

allowed a lumpsum compensation amount of

Rs.4,000/- towards back wages.

6.1. It is contended that on the face of such order

passed by this Court, Petitioner was not re-instated

on the ground of pendency of W.P.(C ) No.12870 of

2005 so filed by Opp Party No.2 before this Court.

However, the said Writ Petition when was dismissed

vide order dtd.04.05.2016 under Annexure-2,

Petitioner was re-instated in his services on daily

wage basis vide order dtd.13.06.2016 under

Annexure-3.

6.2. It is contended that taking into account the

nature of order passed by the learned Labour Court

in ID Case No.60 of 1997 and the fact that Petitioner

continued as a DLR in the establishment of Opp

party No.2 w.e.f 01.07.1987, Petitioner raised a claim

to get the benefit of regularisation. When such claim

of the Petitioner was not considered, he approached

this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.37255 of 2021. This

Court vide order dtd.09.12.2021 under Annexure-5

when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s

claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned

// 4 //

Page 4 of 29

order dtd.12.08.2022 under Annexure-8 on the

ground that petitioner has not been engaged as

against any sanctioned vacant post. While holding

so, Opp. Party No.1 also held the Petitioner not

covered by the decisions in the case of Uma Devi,

M.L. Keshari and so also Amarkanta Ray.

6.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

contended that on the face of the rejection of the

Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularisation,

Petitioner is continuing on daily wage basis as on date.

It is accordingly contended that in view of the recent

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine

SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam,

Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as

Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil

Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 and another decision of

the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of

Jharkhand and Others , 2026 INSC 99 and in the

case of Sukhendu Bhattacharjee & Ors. vs. the

State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 523,

Petitioner has become eligible and entitled to get the

benefit of regularization.

6.4. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Jaggo in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as

follows:-

// 5 //

Page 5 of 29

“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary

employment contracts, as exemplified in this

case, reflects a broader systemic issue that

adversely affects workers' rights and job

security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig

economy has led to an increase in precarious

employment arrangements, often characterized

by lack of benefits, job security, and fair

treatment. Such practices have been criticized

for exploiting workers and undermining labour

standards. Government institutions, entrusted

with upholding the principles of fairness and

justice, bear an even greater responsibility to

avoid such exploitative employment practices.

When public sector entities engage in misuse of

temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the

detrimental trends observed in the gig economy

but also sets a concerning precedent that can

erode public trust in governmental operations.

23. The International Labour Organization (ILO),

of which India is a founding member, has

consistently advocated for employment stability

and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's

Multinational Enterprises Declaration6

encourages companies to provide stable

employment and to observe obligations

concerning employment stability and social

security. It emphasizes that enterprises should

assume a leading role in promoting employment

security, particularly in contexts where job

discontinuation could exacerbate long-term

unemployment.

24. The landmark judgement of the United State

in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7

serves as a pertinent example from the private

sector, illustrating the consequences of

misclassifying employees to circumvent

providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft

classified certain workers as independent

// 6 //

Page 6 of 29

contractors, thereby denying them employee

benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit determined that these workers were, in

fact, common-law employees and were entitled

to the same benefits as regular employees. The

Court noted that large Corporations have

increasingly adopted the practice of hiring

temporary employees or independent

contractors as a means of avoiding payment of

employee benefits, thereby increasing their

profits. This judgment underscores the principle

that the nature of the work performed, rather

than the label assigned to the worker, should

determine employment status and the

corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights

the judiciary's role in rectifying such

misclassifications and ensuring that workers

receive fair treatment.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary

employees, particularly in government

institutions, often face multifaceted forms of

exploitation. While the foundational purpose of

temporary contracts may have been to address

short-term or seasonal needs, they have

increasingly become a mechanism to evade

long-term obligations owed to employees. These

practices manifest in several ways:

• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:

Employees engaged for work that is essential,

recurring, and integral to the functioning of an

institution are often labeled as "temporary" or

"contractual," even when their roles mirror those

of regular employees. Such misclassification

deprives workers of the dignity, security,

and benefits that regular employees are entitled

to, despite performing identical tasks.

// 7 //

Page 7 of 29

• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees

are frequently dismissed without cause or

notice, as seen in the

present case. This practice undermines the

principles of natural justice and subjects

workers to a state of constant insecurity,

regardless of the quality or duration of their

service.

• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary

employees often find themselves excluded from

opportunities for skill development, promotions,

or incremental pay raises. They remain

stagnant in their roles,

creating a systemic disparity between them and

their regular counterparts, despite their

contributions being equally significant.

• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:

Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing

roles performed by temporary employees,

effectively replacing one set of exploited workers

with another. This practice not only perpetuates

exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate

effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular

employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:

Temporary employees are often denied

fundamental benefits such as pension,

provident fund, health insurance, and paid

leave, even when their tenure spans decades.

This lack of social security subjects them and

their families to undue hardship, especially in

cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen

circumstances.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx

// 8 //

Page 8 of 29

27. In light of these considerations, in our

opinion, it is imperative for government

departments to lead by example in providing

fair and stable employment. Engaging workers

on a temporary basis for extended periods,

especially when their roles are integral to the

organization's functioning, not only contravenes

international labour standards but also exposes

the organization to legal challenges and

undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair

employment

practices, government institutions can reduce

the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote

job security, and uphold the principles of justice

and fairness that they are meant to embody.

This approach aligns with international

standards and sets a positive precedent for the

private sector to follow, thereby contributing to

the overall betterment of labour practices in the

country.”

6.5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal in

Para-14, 15, 17 & 18(IV)has held as follows:-

• “14. ...... More importantly, Uma Devi

cannot serve as a shield to justify

exploitative engagements persisting for years

without the Employer undertaking legitimate

recruitment.

• 15. ……. Indian labour law strongly

disfavors perpetual daily-wage or

contractual engagements in circumstances

where the work is permanent in nature.

• xxx xxx xxx xxx

// 9 //

Page 9 of 29

• 17. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations

cannot trump the legitimate rights of

workmen who have served continuously in

de facto regular roles for an extended period.

• 18.(IV) The Respondent Employer is

directed to initiate a fair and transparent

process for regularizing the Appellant

Workmen within six months from the date of

reinstatement, duly considering the fact that

they have performed perennial municipal

duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing

regularization, the Employer shall not impose

educational or procedural criteria retroactively

if such requirements were never applied to

the Appellant Workmen or to similarly

situated regular employees in the past. To the

extent that sanctioned vacancies for such

duties exist or are required, the Respondent

Employer shall expedite all necessary

administrative processes to ensure these

longtime employees are not indefinitely

retained on daily wages contrary to statutory

and equitable norms.”

6.6. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of

Jaggo and Shripal, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Dharam Singh, in Paragraph-13, 14, 15 & 17, 18, 19

& 20 has held as follows:

// 10 //

Page 10 of 29

“13. As we have observed in both Jaggo

(Supra) and Shripal (Supra) , outsourcing

cannot become a convenient shield to

perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair

engagement practices where the work is

inherently perennial. The Commission’s further

contention that the appellants are not “full-

time” employees but continue only by virtue of

interim orders also does not advance their

case. That interim protection was granted

precisely because of the long history of

engagement and the pendency of the challenge

to the State’s refusals. It neither creates rights

that did not exist nor erases entitlements that

may arise upon a proper adjudication of the

legality of those refusals.

14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court

also declined relief on the footing that the

petitioners had not specifically assailed the

subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003.

However, that view overlooks that the writ

petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999

refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh

decision during pendency, and the later

rejection was placed on record by the

respondents. In such circumstances, we

believe that the High Court was obliged to

examine the legality of the State’s stance in

refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon

reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of

the matter on a mere technicality. The Division

Bench of the High Court compounded the error

by affirming the dismissal without engaging

with the principal challenge or the intervening

material. The approach of both the Courts, in

reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry

about “rules” and “vacancy” while ignoring the

core question of arbitrariness in the State’s

refusal to sanction posts despite perennial

need and long service, cannot be sustained.

// 11 //

Page 11 of 29

15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing

observations, the impugned order of the High

Court cannot be sustained. The State’s refusals

dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003,in so far as

they concern the Commission’s proposals for

sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to

address perennial ministerial/attendant work,

are held unsustainable and stand quashed.

xxx xxx xxx

17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to

recall that the State (here referring to both the

Union and the State governments) is not a mere

market participant but a constitutional

employer. It cannot balance budgets on the

backs of those who perform the most basic and

recurring public functions. Where work recurs

day after day and year after year, the

establishment must reflect that reality in its

sanctioned strength and engagement practices.

The long-term extraction of regular labour

under temporary labels corrodes confidence in

public administration and offends the promise

of equal protection. Financial stringency

certainly has a place in public policy, but it is

not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason

and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that

“ad-hocism” thrives where administration is

opaque. The State Departments must keep and

produce accurate establishment registers,

muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements,

and they must explain, with evidence, why

they prefer precarious engagement over

sanctioned posts where the work is perennial.

If “constraint” is invoked, the record should

show what alternatives were considered, why

similarly placed workers were treated

differently, and how the chosen course aligns

with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution

of India. Sensitivity to the human

// 12 //

Page 12 of 29

consequences of prolonged insecurity is not

sentimentality. It is an institutional discipline

that should inform every decision affecting

those who keep public offices running.

19. Having regard to the long, undisputed

service of the appellants, the admitted

perennial nature of their duties, and the

material indicating vacancies and comparator

regularisations, we issue the following

directions:

i. Regularization and creation of

Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall

stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002,

the date on which the High Court directed a

fresh recommendation by the Commission and

a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning

posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the

State and the successor establishment (U.P.

Education Services Selection Commission) shall

create supernumerary posts in the

corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or

equivalent) and Class-IV

(Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without

any caveats or preconditions. On

regularization, each appellant shall be placed

at not less than the minimum of the regular

pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-

drawn wages if higher and the appellants

shall be entitled to the subsequent increments

in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For

seniority and promotion, service shall count

from the date of regularization as given above.

ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each

appellant shall be paid as arrears the full

difference between (a) the pay and admissible

allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-

level for the post from time to time, and (b) the

amounts actually paid, for the period from

24.04.2002 until the date of regularization

/retirement/death, as the case may be.

// 13 //

Page 13 of 29

Amounts already paid under previous interim

directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears

shall be released within three months and if in

default, the unpaid amount shall carry

compound interest at 6% per annum from the

date of default until payment.

iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has

already retired shall be granted regularization

with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of

superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under

clause (ii), and recalculation of pension,

gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised

pension and terminal dues shall be paid within

three months of this Judgment.

iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of

Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who

has died during pendency, his/her legal

representatives on record shall be paid the

arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of

death, together with all terminal/retiral dues

recalculated consistently with clause (i), within

three months of this Judgement.

v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal

Secretary, Higher Education Department,

Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary

of the U.P. Education Services Selection

Commission or the prevalent competent

authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance

before this Court within four months of this

Judgement.

20. We have framed these directions

comprehensively because, case after case,

orders of this Court in such matters have been

met with fresh technicalities, rolling

“reconsiderations,” and administrative drift

which further prolongs the insecurity for those

who have already laboured for years on daily

wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice

in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter

// 14 //

Page 14 of 29

directions, but it demands imposition of clear

duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable

compliance .As a constitutional employer, the

State is held to a higher standard and

therefore it must organise its perennial workers

on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for

lawful engagement, and implement judicial

directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow

these obligations is not mere negligence but

rather it is a conscious method of denial that

erodes livelihoods and dignity for these

workers. The operative scheme we have set

here comprising of creation of supernumerary

posts, full regularization, subsequent financial

benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance,

is therefore a pathway designed to convert

rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that

fairness in engagement and transparency in

administration are not matters of grace, but

obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the

Constitution of India.”

6.7. It is contended that in the recent decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath so cited

(supra), Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13.5 to 14 of the

judgment has held as follows:-

“13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a

conscious and reasoned one. An employee who

has satisfactorily discharged his duties over

several years and has been granted repeated

extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as

surplus or undesirable. We are unable to

accept the 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

// 15 //

Page 15 of 29

engaging employees under the nominal labels

of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in

perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not

regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union

of India, this Court underscored that

government departments must lead by

example in ensuring fair and stable

employment, and evolved the test of examining

whether the duties performed by such

temporary employees are integral to the day-to-

day functioning of the organization.

13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod

Kumar v. Union of India , this Court

cautioned against a mechanical and blind

reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny

regularization to temporary employees in the

absence of statutory rules. It was held that

Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a

shield to legitimise exploitative engagements

continued for years without undertaking

regular recruitment. The Court further clarified

that Umadevi itself draws a distinction

between appointments that are “illegal” and

those that are merely “irregular”, the latter

being amenable to regularization upon

fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.

13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this

Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-

hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as

employers. The Court criticised the practice of

outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a

means to evade regular employment

obligations, observing that such measures

perpetuate precarious working conditions while

circumventing fair and lawful engagement

practices.

13.9. The State must remain conscious that

part-time employees, such as the appellants,

constitute an integral part of the edifice upon

which the machinery of the State continues to

// 16 //

Page 16 of 29

function. They are not merely ancillary to the

system, but form essential components thereof.

The equality mandate of our Constitution,

therefore, requires that their service be

reciprocated in a manner free from

arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the

State affecting the careers and livelihood of

such part-time and contractual employees are

guided by fairness and reason.

13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are

unable to persuade ourselves to accept the

respondent-State’s contention that the mere

contractual nomenclature of the appellants’

engagement denudes them of constitutional

protection. The State, having availed of the

appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for

over a decade pursuant to a due process of

selection and having consistently

acknowledged their satisfactory performance,

cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a

speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such

engagement by taking refuge behind formal

contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly

arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the

State to act as a model employer, and fails to

withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the

Constitution.

FINAL CONCLUSION:

14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing

paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as

follows:

I. The respondent-State was not justified in

continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant

posts for over a decade under the

nomenclature of contractual engagement and

thereafter denying them consideration for

regularization.

II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing

engagement solely on the basis of contractual

// 17 //

Page 17 of 29

nomenclature, without either recording cogent

reasons or passing a speaking order, is

manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14

of the Constitution.

III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar

claims for regularization cannot override

constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of

contractual terms does not amount to waiver of

fundamental rights, and contractual

stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State

action from constitutional scrutiny.

IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely

on contractual labels or mechanical application

of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-

hocism or to discard long-serving employees in

a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity

and constitutional governance.

V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we

direct the respondent-State to forthwith

regularize the services of all the appellants

against the sanctioned posts to which they

were initially appointed. The appellants shall

be entitled to all consequential service benefits

accruing from the date of this judgment.”

6.8. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 73 to 79 of

the decision in the case of Sukhendu

Bhattacharjee has held as follows:-

73. As regards the contention of Shri Gupta

that after the decision in Umadevi (supra) no

regularization can be effected in respect of

employees who were not appointed against

duly sanctioned posts, we are unable to accept

such a sweeping proposition in the facts of the

present case. The submission proceeds on the

premise that Umadevi (supra) lays down an

absolute and inflexible embargo against all

forms of regularization irrespective of the

// 18 //

Page 18 of 29

surrounding circumstances. Such an

interpretation, in our considered view, does not

reflect the true scope and ratio of the decision.

74. This Court in Jaggo (supra), deprecated the

tendency of the State to take mechanical

shelter under Umadevi (supra) to deny relief to

employees who had been performing work of a

permanent and essential nature for long years.

This Court observed as follows: -

“12. Despite being labelled as “part -time

workers,” the appellants performed these

essential tasks on a daily and continuous

basis over extensive periods, ranging from over

a decade to nearly two decades. Their

engagement was not sporadic or temporary in

nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and

akin to the responsibilities typically associated

with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the

respondents did not engage any other

personnel for these tasks during the

appellants' tenure, underscoring the

indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim by the respondents that these

were not regular posts lacks merit, as the

nature of the work performed by the appellants

was perennial and fundamental to the

functioning of the offices. The recurring nature

of these duties necessitates their classification

as regular posts, irrespective of how their

initial engagements were labelled. It is also

noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of

these same tasks to private agencies after the

appellants' termination demonstrates the

inherent need for these services. This act of

outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set

of workers with another, further underscores

that the work in question was neither

temporary nor occasional.

// 19 //

Page 19 of 29

19. It is evident from the foregoing that the

appellants' roles were not only essential but

also indistinguishable from those of regular

employees. Their sustained contributions over

extended periods, coupled with absence of any

adverse record, warrant equitable treatment

and regularization of their services. Denial of

this benefit, followed by their arbitrary

termination, amounts to manifest injustice and

must be rectified.

20. It is well established that the decision in

Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize

employees who have rendered long years of

service fulfilling ongoing and necessary

functions of the State or its instrumentalities.

The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor

entries and illegal appointments that

circumvent constitutional requirements.

However, where appointments were not illegal

but possibly “irregular,” and where employees

had served continuously against the backdrop

of sanctioned functions for a considerable

period, the need for a fair and humane

resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged,

continuous, and unblemished service

performing tasks inherently required on a

regular basis can, over the time, transform

what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a

scenario demanding fair regularization. In a

recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar

v. Union of India, it was held that held that

procedural formalities cannot be used to deny

regularization of service to an employee whose

appointment was termed “temporary” but has

performed the same duties as performed by

theregular employee over a considerable period

in the capacity of the regular employee.

22. The pervasive misuse of temporary

employment contracts, as exemplified in this

case, reflects a broader systemic issue that

adversely affects workers' rights and job

// 20 //

Page 20 of 29

security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig

economy has led to an increase in precarious

employment arrangements, often characterized

by lack of benefits, job security, and fair

treatment. Such practices have been criticized

for exploiting workers and undermining labour

standards. Government institutions, entrusted

with upholding the principles of fairness and

justice, bear an even greater responsibility to

avoid such exploitative employment practices.

When public sector entities engage in misuse of

temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the

detrimental trends observed in the gig economy

but also sets a concerning precedent that can

erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary

employees, particularly in government

institutions, often face multifaceted forms of

exploitation. While the foundational purpose of

temporary contracts may have been to address

short-term or seasonal needs, they have

increasingly become a mechanism to evade

long-term obligations owed to employees.

These practices manifest in several ways:

• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees

engaged for work that is essential, recurring,

and integral to the functioning of an institution

are often labeled as “temporary” or

“contractual,” even when their roles mirror

those of regular employees. Such

misclassification deprives workers of the

dignity, security, and benefits that

regularemployees are entitled to, despite

performing identical tasks.

• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees

are frequently dismissed without cause or

notice, as seen in the present case. This

practice undermines the principles of natural

justice and subjects workers to a state of

// 21 //

Page 21 of 29

constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or

duration of their service.

• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary

employees often find themselves excluded from

opportunities for skill development, promotions,

or incremental pay raises. They remain

stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic

disparity between them and their regular

counterparts, despite their contributions being

equally significant.

• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions

increasingly resort to outsourcing roles

performed by temporary employees, effectively

replacing one set of exploited workers with

another. This practice not only perpetuates

exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate

effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular

employment.

• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:

Temporary employees are often denied

fundamental benefits such as pension,

provident fund, health insurance, and paid

leave, even when their tenure spans decades.

This lack of social security subjects them and

their families to undue hardship, especially in

cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen

circumstances.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra)

sought to curtail the practice of backdoor

entries and ensure appointments adhered to

constitutional principles, it is regrettable that

its principles are often misinterpreted or

misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-

serving employees. This judgment aimed to

distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular”

appointments. It categorically held that

employees in irregular appointments, who were

engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had

served continuously for more than ten years,

// 22 //

Page 22 of 29

should be considered for regularization as a

onetime measure. However, the laudable intent

of the judgment is being subverted when

institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately

reject the claims of employees, even in cases

where their appointments are not illegal, but

merely lack adherence to procedural

formalities. Government departments often cite

the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that

no vested right to regularization exists for

temporary employees, overlooking the

judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases

where regularization is appropriate. This

selective application distorts the judgment's

spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it

against employees who have rendered

indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our

opinion, it is imperative for government

departments to lead by example in providing

fair and stable employment. Engaging workers

on a temporary basis for extended periods,

especially when their roles are integral to the

organization's functioning, not only

contravenes international labour standards but

also exposes the organization to legal

challenges and undermines employee morale.

By ensuring fair employment practices,

government institutions can reduce the burden

of unnecessary litigation, promote job security,

and uphold theprinciples of justice and

fairness that they are meant to embody. This

approach aligns with international standards

and sets a positive precedent for the private

sector to follow, thereby contributing to the

overall betterment of labour practices in the

country.”

75. Recently, this Court in Bhola Nath (supra)

while relying on the judgment of Jaggo (supra),

Shripal (supra), and Dharam Singh (supra)

observed as follows:-

// 23 //

Page 23 of 29

“13.6. This Court has, on several occasions,

deprecated the practice adopted by States of

engaging employees under the nominal labels

of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in

perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not

regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union

of India, this Court underscored that

government departments must lead by

example in ensuring fair and stable

employment, and evolved the test of examining

whether the duties performed by such

temporary employees are integral to the day-to-

day functioning of the organization.

13.7 In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod

Kumar v. Union of India, this Court cautioned

against a mechanical and blind reliance on

Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to

temporary employees in the absence of

statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi

(supra) cannot be employed as a shield to

legitimise exploitative engagements continued

for years without undertaking regular

recruitment. The Court further clarified that

Umadevi itself draws adistinction between

appointments that are “illegal” and those that

are merely “irregular”, the latter being

amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of

the prescribed conditions.

13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this

Court strongly deprecated the culture of

“adhocism” adopted by States in their capacity

as employers. The Court criticised the practice

of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a

means to evade regular 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,

// 24 //

Page 24 of 29

constitute an integral part of the edifice upon

which the machinery of the State continues to

function. They are not merely ancillary to the

system, but form essential components thereof.

The equality mandate of our Constitution,

therefore, requires that their service be

reciprocated in a manner free from

arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the

State affecting the careers and livelihood of

such part-time and contractual employees are

guided by fairness and reason.”

76. What emerges from the principles

enunciated in the aforesaid decisions is that

the State cannot rely upon the mere form of

engagement to deny fair and equitable

treatment to employees who have served it for

long years. The consistent thread

runningthrough these judgments is that

Umadevi (supra) cannot be invoked as a

blanket barrier to justify prolonged and

continued engagements of a temporary or ad

hoc nature, especially where the employees

have been discharging essential and recurring

functions of the State. The Court has

repeatedly emphasised that the distinction

between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments

must be kept in view, that long and continuous

service is a relevant consideration, and that the

State, as a model employer, is under a

constitutional obligation to act with fairness,

consistency and reasonableness. The practice

of retaining employees for decades under

deceptively titled designations, while

simultaneously extracting regular work integral

to the administration, has been disapproved

consistently.

77. Applying these principles to the present

case, it is evident that engaging workers on

muster rolls was a consistently employed

policy of the State which continued for

prolonged period of time. The appellants were

// 25 //

Page 25 of 29

not engaged for sporadic or seasonal purposes

but were taken on muster rolls and have

rendered continuous service for decades in

departments performing regular

governmentalfunctions. The State itself

acknowledged the magnitude of the issue and

framed a Cabinet policy to regularize similarly

situated workers, acting upon it in respect of

nearly 30,000 employees. In such

circumstances, to deny consideration to the

fraction of remaining eligible workers including

the appellants, by taking shelter under a rigid

reading of Umadevi (supra) would defeat the

very principles of fairness and non-

arbitrariness that this Court has consistently

upheld.

78. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable

to accept the contention of the State that the

appellants cannot be granted regularization on

the ground that they were not initially

appointed against duly sanctioned posts. The

State, having engaged the appellants prior to

1st April, 1993, utilised their services

continuously for decades, and having itself

framed and implemented a Cabinet policy

regularizing nearly 30,000 similarly situated

workers, cannot now exclude the appellants by

taking shelter behind a rigid or technical

reading of Umadevi (supra). In absence of any

cogent distinction or reasoned decision

justifying such exclusion, the action of the

State is manifestlyarbitrary. It is inconsistent

with its obligation to function as a model

employer and does not withstand scrutiny

under Article 14 of the Constitution.

79. In view of the discussion made

hereinabove, the impugned judgment dated 8th

June, 2017 passed by the Division Bench

cannot be sustained and is set aside and the

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated

20th December, 2013 is affirmed.

// 26 //

Page 26 of 29

Consequently, we pass the following

directions:-

I. The appellants shall be treated as

regularised in service in terms of the Cabinet

decision dated 22nd July, 2005 and from the

date on which similarly placed 30,000

employees were given benefit of the said

Cabinet decision.

II. The State of Assam shall identify and verify

the eligible appellants and, where necessary,

create supernumerary posts to facilitate their

regularization.

III. Upon regularization, the appellants shall be

entitled to all consequential benefits, including

fixation of pay in the regular scale, continuity

of service, and all applicable pensionary and

postretiral benefits in the same terms, as

wereextended to similarly situated 30,000

employees.

IV. In case of retired appellants, they shall be

granted notional regularization with

consequential monetary benefits and arrears

from the relevant date until their

superannuation for the purpose of recalculating

pension, gratuity, and terminal dues.

V. In case of deceased appellants, arrears and

other benefits shall be released to their legal

heirs in accordance with law.

VI. The entire exercise, including the calculation

and payment of all financial arrears, shall be

completed within a period of one year from the

date of this judgment.

VII. We make it clear that the benefit of the

above directions shall only be applicable to the

appellants who were working in the

departments of the State before the cut-off date

// 27 //

Page 27 of 29

prescribed in Cabinet decision dated 22nd

July, 2005 i.e. before 1st April, 1993.”

6.9. Accordingly, it is contended that Petitioner’s

claim is required to be considered afresh by Opp.

Party No.1 to get the benefit of regularisation.

7. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand

while supporting the impugned order contended that

since Petitioner’s initial engagement is against a non-

sanctioned post, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled

to get the benefit of regularisation. It is further

contended that since Petitioner because of his

retrenchment w.e.f 18.10.1995 remained out of

employment till he was re-engaged vide order

dtd.13.06.2016 under Annexure-3, it cannot be held

that Petitioner continued in his work without any

break in engagement. It is accordingly contended

that Petitioner’s claim has been rightly rejected by

Opp. Party No.1.

8. Even though no appearance is there on behalf

of Opp. Party No.2, but this Court went through the

counter affidavit so submitted by the learned counsel

appearing for Opp. Party No.2. It is found that Opp.

Party No.2 has taken similar ground, basing on

which Petitioner’s claim was rejected vide the

impugned order and so submitted by the learned

State Counsel.

// 28 //

Page 28 of 29

9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the

parties and considering the submission made, this

Court finds that Petitioner was engaged on daily

wage basis in the establishment of Opp. Party No.2

w.e.f 01.07.1987. While so continuing, when

Petitioner was disengaged w.e.f 18.10.1995, the

matter was carried to the learned Labour Court in

I.D Case No.60 of 1997. Learned Labour Court vide

its award dtd.29.07.2005 under Annexure-1, while

treating the retrenchment of the Petitioner as illegal,

directed for his re-instatement and allowed lumpsum

compensation of Rs.4,000/- towards backwages.

The said award after being affirmed by this Court in

its order dtd.04.05.2016 under Annexure-2,

Petitioner was re-engaged vide order dtd.13.06.2016

under Anenxure-3.

9.1. Petitioner thereafter when raised a claim to get

the benefit of regularisation and this Court directed

accordingly in its order dtd.09.12.2021 in W.P.(C )

No.37255 of 2021, directing Opp. Party No.1 to

consider the Petitioner’s claim in the light of the

decision in the case of Uma Devi, M.L. Keshari and

Amarkanta Rai, the same was rejected vide the

impugned order on the ground that Petitioner’s

engagement is against a non-sanctioned post.

9.2. Considering the submission and the fact that

Petitioner is continuing in the establishment of Opp.

// 29 //

Page 29 of 29

Party No.2 w.e.f 01.07.1997 and his retrenchment was

declared as illegal by the Labour Court so affirmed by

this Court and even on the face of the rejection of the

Petitioner’s claim, he is continuing on daily wage basis

as on date so contended, this Court while quashing of

the impugned order dtd.12.08.2022, directs Opp. Party

No.1 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim

in the light of the decisions in the case of

Jaggo,Shripal, Dharam Singh, Bhola Nath and

Sukhendu Bhattacharjee so cited supra, this Court

directs Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision within

a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of

this order.

9.3. Till a decision is taken as directed, no coercive

action be taken against the Petitioner.

10. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed

of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

Dated the 23

rd September, 2026/Sangita