DEBENDRANATH MISHRA vs ORISSA BRIDGE and CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) Nos.17377 of 2015
CNR No. ODHC010492842015
In the matter of an application under Article-226 &
227 of the Constitution of India
………………
Debendranath Mishra &
Others
Petitioners
….
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
…. Opposite Parties
For Petitioners : Ms. S.K. Rath,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Dr. P.P. Behera,
Addl. Standing Counsel.
Mr. S.K. Mishra,Adv.
(for O.P.No.2)
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 29.10.2026 & Date of Judgment: 29.10.2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
// 2 //
2. Pursuant to order dtd.28.09.2026, Mr. S.K. Mishra,
learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Corporation
produced the documents showing nature of engagement of
the Petitioner with service of copy on Mr.S.K. Rath, learned
counsel appearing for the Petitioners on behalf of Mr. K.K.
Das, learned counsel.
2.1. It is contended that out of all the Petitioners, who
were engaged on DLR basis at different point of time,
Petitioner Nos.8,16,18,20, 21,23 & 29 are continuing at
present and all the other Petitioners have retired in the
meantime.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer:
The Petitioners, therefore, pray that this Hon’ble Court may
graciously be pleased to admit the writ application and issue
Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as
to why a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders shall not be
passed directing the opposite parties:
(i) to direct the Opposite parties-Corporation to regularize the
services of the Petitioners, who are continuously working in
the Corporation for more than 20 years against the vacant
posts and have completed 240 days of work in year per
Calendar he scheme prepared by the Govt. vide resolution
dated 15.05.1997 (Annexure and Govt. resolution dated 1
Page 2 of 22
// 3 //
(Annexure- 4) and 04.09.2012 per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Court by giving all consequential service benefits,
which they are entitled to, by quashing the office order
dated 06.08.2015 under Annexure- 11 of the Govt. of
Odisha, Works Department and Office Memo dated
26.08.2015 under Annexure 12 of the opposite parties
Corporation, as the same is not in consonance with the
order/direction of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 19351
of 2012 and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution
of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in a catena of decisions.
(ii) And to pass such other order/orders, which would afford
complete relief to the Petitioners.
If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient
cause, the said Ruyle be made absolute.
And for this act of kindness, the Petitioners shall as n duty
bound remain ever pray.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended
that even though all the Petitioners were engaged and
allowed to continue on daily wage basis for a pretty long
period, but they were never regularized in their services.
Accordingly, the present Writ Petition was filed inter alia
with the prayer as indicated hereinabove.
5.1. It is also contended that during pendency of the Writ
Petition, most of the Petitioners while continuing on daily
wage basis have retired, save and except Petitioner
Nos.8,16,18,20,20,21,23 & 29. It is accordingly contended
that Opp. party-Corporation be directed to regularize the
services of the Petitioners with extension of the benefit of
Page 3 of 22
// 4 //
pension and other pensionary benefits, who have retired in
the meantime, during pendency of the Writ Petition and
regularize the services of the Petitioners, who are
continuing under the Corporation at present. It is also
contended that taking not account the long continuance of
the Petitioners on daily wage basis, they are not only eligible
and entitled to get the benefit of regularization, but also the
benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits, as due
and admissible to the Corporation employees.
5.2. In support of such submission, reliance was placed to
the decisions 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,
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs.
State of Jharkhand and Others , 2026 INSC 99 and so
also Sukhendu Bhatacharjee & Ors. vs. the State of
Assam & Ors.
Page 4 of 22
// 5 //
5.3.
View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Jaggo in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as follows:-
“22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and
job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy
has led to an increase in precarious employment
arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job
security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour
standards. Government institutions, entrusted with
upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an
even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative
employment practices. When public sector entities engage in
misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also
sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which
India is a founding member, has consistently advocated
for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers.
The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6
encourages companies to provide stable employment and
to observe obligations 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 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,
Page 5 of 22
// 6 //
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.
• 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
Page 6 of 22
// 7 //
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx
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.”
5.4 . Shripal in Para-14,
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
15, 17 & 18(IV) of the said judgment 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
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
Page 7 of 22
// 8 //
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.
”
5.5. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jaggo and
Shripal Dharam Singh,
, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
in Paragraph-13, 14, 15 & 17, 18, 19 & 20 has held as follows:
As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and
“13.
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.
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
Page 8 of 22
// 9 //
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
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
Page 9 of 22
// 10 //
shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular
pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages
if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the
subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay
grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from
the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall
be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and
admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-
level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts
actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date
of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be.
Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall
be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three
months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry
compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default
until payment.
iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired
shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002
until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears
under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and
other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues
shall be paid within three months of this Judgment.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and
any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her
legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears
under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all
terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause
(i), within three months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the
Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection
Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file
an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four
months of this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively
because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters
have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling
“reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further
prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured
for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that
Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but
it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and
verifiable compliance .As a constitutional employer, the State
is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise
its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a
budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial
directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations
Page 10 of 22
// 11 //
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.”
5.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath in Para-
13.5 to 14 of the judgment has held as follows:-
“13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and
reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged
his duties over several years and has been granted repeated
extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or
undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification
advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the State, as
a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees
irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or
regular.
13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the
practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the
nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in
perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing
their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India , this Court
underscored that government departments must lead by
example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved
the test of examining whether the duties performed by such
temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day
functioning of the organization.
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.
Page 11 of 22
// 12 //
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P ., this Court strongly
deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in
their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice
of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to
evade regular employment obligations, observing that such
measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while
circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices.
13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time
employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part
of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues
to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but
form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of
our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be
reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that
decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of
such part-time and contractual employees are guided by
fairness and reason.
13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade
ourselves to accept the respondent-State’s contention that the
mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants’ engagement
denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having
availed of the appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for over
a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having
consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance,
cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking
decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking
refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is
manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the
State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand
scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we
summarize our conclusions as follows:
I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the
appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under
the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter
denying them consideration for regularization.
II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement
solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either
recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is
manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
Page 12 of 22
// 13 //
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.”
5.7 Sukhendu
. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Bhattacharjee in Para-73 to 79 of the said judgment
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 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,
Page 13 of 22
// 14 //
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. 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
Page 14 of 22
// 15 //
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 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
Page 15 of 22
// 16 //
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 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, should be considered for
regularization as a onetime measure. However,
the laudable intent of the judgment is being
Page 16 of 22
// 17 //
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:-
“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
Page 17 of 22
// 18 //
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, 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.
Page 18 of 22
// 19 //
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 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.
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
Page 19 of 22
// 20 //
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
prescribed in Cabinet decision dated 22nd July, 2005 i.e.
before 1st April, 1993.”
6. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Opp.
Party-Corporation on the other hand contended that since
Petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis and in the
meantime most of the Petitioners have retired, save and
except Petitioner Nos. 8,16,18,20, 21,23 & 29. Petitioners
who have retired from services are not eligible and entitled
to get the benefit of regularization and so also release of
retiral benefits, as after their retirement, they have been
released with the benefit, as due and admissible to them.
It is further contended that those of the Petitioners who are
continuing on daily wage basis at present are being paid
Page 20 of 22
// 21 //
with the minimum wage as prescribed by the Government
from time to time.
It is accordingly contended that none of the
Petitioners are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of
regularization as they were never engaged by facing any
recruitment process nor against any sanctioned posts.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court taking into
account the fact that Petitioners on the face of their
continuance on daily wage basis under the Corporation for
a pretty long period were not regularized, placing reliance
on the decision in the case of Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam
Singh, Bholanath and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee, while
disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioners to make
individual representation before Opp. Party No.1 for
consideration of their claim to get the benefit of
regularization and consequential release of pension and
other pensionary benefits, as due and admissible to the
employees of the Corporation.
7.1. It is observed that if such individual representation will
be filed within a period of three weeks hence, Opp. Party
Page 21 of 22
// 22 //
No.1 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same
within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt
of such representation. The order so passed by Opp. Party
No. 1 be communicated to the Petitioners.
7.2. Petitioners are directed to enclose the decisions in the
case of Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam Singh, Bholanath and
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee along with their representations
for consideration of their claim.
8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated the 29 October, 2026/Sangita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 31-Oct-2026 14:07:21
Page 22 of 22