Orissa HC Tells Long-Serving Daily-Wage Corporation Workers To Seek Regularisation; State Must Decide Their Claims Within 3 Months of Representation

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction for regularization and consequential service and pensionary benefits, notwithstanding their daily-wage engagement and the Corporation’s objections concerning recruitment and sanctioned posts.

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of without a direct order regularizing any petitioner or awarding pensionary benefits.

It also directed

The petitioners were permitted to file individual representations before Opposite Party No. 1 within three weeks; that authority was directed to decide each representation lawfully within three months of receipt and communicate its decision to the petitioners.

The petitioners were directed to enclose the cited Supreme Court decisions with their representations.

01Facts

The petitioners, engaged by the opposite-party Corporation on a daily-rated labour (DLR) basis at different times, sought regularization and consequential service and pensionary benefits.

p. 2

They also challenged a Works Department order dated 6 August 2015 and a Corporation memorandum dated 26 August 2015.

p. 2

During the proceedings, the Corporation stated that seven petitioners remained in service and the others had retired; the petitioners sought regularization and pensionary benefits for those who had retired, and regularization for those still working.

pp. 2–4

The Corporation opposed the claim, contending that the petitioners had not undergone a recruitment process and had not been engaged against sanctioned posts; it also stated that retirees had received the benefits due to them and serving petitioners were paid the prescribed minimum wage.

p. 20

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction for regularization and consequential service and pensionary benefits, notwithstanding their daily-wage engagement and the Corporation’s objections concerning recruitment and sanctioned posts.

pp. 2–4, 20–21

ii.2. Whether the Court should determine the petitioners’ individual claims in the writ petition or require them to first seek consideration by the competent authority.

p. 21

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; the petitioners also alleged that the impugned orders violated Articles 14 and 21.

pp. 2–3

The petitioners relied on Jaggo v. Union of India, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. State of Assam, citing principles concerning prolonged temporary or daily-wage engagement, fair treatment by the State as a model employer, and consideration of regularization claims in light of the nature and duration of the work.

pp. 4–19

The Court relied on those authorities in permitting the petitioners to submit individual representations, but did not determine whether any petitioner satisfied the applicable requirements for regularization or pensionary benefits.

p. 21

04Reasoning

The Court noted the petitioners’ prolonged daily-wage service and considered the authorities they invoked, alongside the Corporation’s objections that they had not been recruited through a process or appointed against sanctioned posts.

pp. 20–21

Rather than rule on the merits of each petitioner’s entitlement, the Court adopted a procedural course: it permitted each petitioner to place their claim before Opposite Party No. 1 for a lawful decision, with the cited Supreme Court judgments enclosed.

p. 21

Thus, the judgment does not itself establish a right to regularization or pensionary benefits for these petitioners.

p. 21