Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation,Khurda Vs State of Odisha

1. Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Represented through Chairman, Board of Director, IDCO At: IDCO Towers, Janpath Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.

¶11

2. Chairman- cum -Managing Director Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation At: IDCO Towers, Janpath Bhubaneswar, District: Khordha.

¶12

3. Chief General Manager (P&A) Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation At: IDCO Towers, Janpath Bhubaneswar District: Khordha. … Appellants

¶13

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶14

Page 1 of 28

¶15

-VERSUS-

¶16

1. State of Odisha represented through Secretary, Department of Industry Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneswar Khordha.

¶17

2. Finance Secretary Department of Finance At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat Bhubaneswar Khordha.

¶18

3. Chief Secretary Government of Odisha At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat Bhubaneswar, Khordha.

¶19

4. Secretary Water Resources Department At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat Bhubaneswar, Khordha.

¶20

5. Secretary, P & E Department At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat Bhubaneswar, Khordha. … Pro forma Respondents.

¶21

6. Prasant Kumar Panigrahy Son of Magati Panigrahy At present working as Junior Engineer (Civil), IDCO Cuttack Division Cuttack. … Respondent.

¶22

W.A. No.643 of 2025

¶23

Prasant Kumar Panigrahy Aged about 52 years Son of Late Magati Panigrahy At/P.O.: Kulagarh, District: Ganjam At present working as

¶24

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶25

Page 2 of 28

¶26

Junior Manager (Civil), IDCO Berhampur Division … Ganjam

¶27

Appellant

¶28

-VERSUS-

¶29

1. Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Odisha Represented through Chairman, Board of Director, IDCO At: IDCO Towers Janpath, Bhubaneswar Khordha.

¶30

2. The Chairman- cum -Managing Director, Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Odisha At: IDCO Towers, Janpath Bhubaneswar, Khordha.

¶31

3. Chief General Manager (P&A) Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Odisha At: IDCO Towers, Janpath Bhubaneswar, Khordha.

¶32

4. State of Odisha Represented through Secretary, Department of Industry Odisha Secretariat, Bhubaneswar Khordha.

¶33

5. Finance Secretary Department of Finance At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat Bhubaneswar, Khordha.

¶34

6. Chief Secretary Government of Odisha At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat Bhubaneswar, Khordha.

¶35

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶36

Page 3 of 28

¶37

7. Secretary Water Resources Department At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat Bhubaneswar, Khordha.

¶38

8. Secretary, P&E Department At/P.O.: Odisha Secretariat Bhubaneswar Khordha. … Respondents.

¶39

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶40

W.A. No.569 of 2025

¶41

For the Appellant	: Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Senior Advocate assisted by M/s. Pronoy Mohanty, S.K. Sahu, K.T. Mudali, P. Pani, K. Panda, Advocates
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 5	: Mr. Bimbisar Dash, Additional Government Advocate
For the Respondent No.6 W.A. No.643 of 2025	: Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjib Mohanty, Advocate
For the Appellant	: Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjib Mohanty, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3	: Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Senior Advocate assisted by M/s. Pronoy Mohanty,

¶42

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶43

Page 4 of 28

¶44

S.K. Sahu, K.T. Mudali, P. Pani, K. Panda, Advocates

¶45

For the Respondent : Mr. Bimbisar Dash, Nos.4 to 8 Additional Government Advocate

¶46

P R E S E N T:

¶47

HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON

¶48

AND

¶49

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶50

Date of Hearing : 14.07.2025 :: Date of Order : 29.07.2025

¶51

ORDER

¶52

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.—

¶53

Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Odisha and others (opposite parties in the writ petition) and Prasant Kumar Panigrahi (petitioner in the writ petition) have challenged the judgment dated 17^th December, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.21376 of 2022 in the instant Writ Appeals, being W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 and 643 of 2025 respectively.

¶54

As both the instant Writ Appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 17^th December, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.21376 of 2022, they were taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.

¶55

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶56

Page 5 of 28

¶57

THE FACTS IN W.A. NO.569 OF 2025:

¶58

2. Facts as detailed by Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Odisha (for brevity “IDCO”) reveal that the respondent No.6 (Prasant Kumar Panigrahy, for convenience, hereinafter referred to as “PKP”) appointed in the year 2007 as Junior Engineer (Civil) on contractual basis, claimed for regularization by way of a writ petition, registered as W.P.(C) No.934 of 2016, which was disposed of by an order dated 16^th September, 2019 with a direction to consider the case of PKP for regularization in service and extension of consequential benefits. The service of PKP along with other similarly situated employees was absorbed in regular establishment against Junior Engineer (Civil) post with effect from 13^th March, 2020 by office order dated 26^th June, 2020.

¶59

2.1. For antedating the date of absorption in service upon completion of six years of contractual service from the date of initial appointment, a writ petition, W.P.(C) No.9701 of 2022, being filed, was disposed of vide order dated 29.04.2022 with a direction to consider the representation by affording an opportunity of hearing to PKP. Having afforded opportunity of hearing while rejecting the claim for antedating the date of regularization for the reason that his claim for promotion would be governed by the Odisha Industrial

¶60

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶61

Page 6 of 28

¶62

Infrastructure Development Corporation (Method of Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2019 (for short “IDCO Service Regulations, 2019”), whereunder minimum five years of service in Junior Engineer (Civil) is specified as the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Civil).

¶63

2.2. As PKP is regularized in service on 13^th March, 2020, he having not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for promotion in the rank of Assistant Manager (Civil), the Authority has taken a decision not to act according to Rule 9 of the Odisha Diploma Engineers Service (Method of Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012 (for short “Rules, 2012”) as notified by the Government of Odisha in the Water Resources Department read with amendment thereto vide Notification dated 29^th August, 2015.

¶64

2.3. Challenging such refusal, PKP and others approached this Court by way of filing W.P.(C) No.934 of 2016, wherein prayer was made to quash the orders dated 21^st November, 2015 and 16^th December, 2015 with a direction to the concerned Authorities to regularize their services in terms of Rule 10 of the Odisha Group-C and Group-D Posts (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013 (for short “Rules, 2013”) in view of the decision taken in 101^st and 79^th Board meetings held on 19^th May, 2015 and 29^th March, 2010 respectively. Having recorded the

¶65

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶66

Page 7 of 28

¶67

submission that the petitioners therein had already rendered more than ten years of service, this Court in said W.P.(C) No.934 of 2016 passed the following order:

¶68

“ ***

¶69

Since the petitioners are continuing as contractual Junior Engineers for more than 13 years, their cases have to be considered for regularization in terms of the Regulations, 2019, which have already been approved by the Government. As Mr. C.A. Rao, learned Senior Counsel for opposite parties-Corporation states that process for regularization has already been started and shall be completed soon, in that view of the matter, the relief sought has already been granted to the petitioners. Thereby, the orders dated 21.11.2015 and 16.12.2015 in Annexures-13 and 14 respectively are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the opposite parties no.1 to 3 Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and grant all consequential benefits in terms of the Regulations framed by the authority within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.”

¶70

2.4. Though services of PKP was regularized in terms of the IDCO Service Regulations, 2019 in compliance of order dated 16^th September, 2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.934 of 2016, another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.21376 of 2022 was filed. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated 17^th December, 2024, held as follows:

¶71

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶72

Page 8 of 28

¶73

“ 13. For the reasons stated above, the order of regularization under Annexure-11 is modified to the extent that such period of service rendered by the petitioner upon completion of six years of his contractual service from the date of initial appointment should be counted towards his regular service. However, the petitioner would not be entitled for any such financial benefits for antedating his date of regularization as such.

¶74

14. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed with a direction to the Opposite Parties to grant all such service benefits in favour of the petitioner to count his service in the regular establishment for such other service benefits, except financial benefits.”

¶75

2.5. IDCO has challenged the said judgment dated 17^th December, 2024 in Writ Appeal No.569 of 2025 inter alia on the ground that on the date of consideration for regularization, since IDCO Service Regulations, 2019 is in vogue, the learned Single Judge misdirected by directing to treat the regularization in service on completion of six years from the date of initial engagement/appointment of PKP.

¶76

The facts in W.A. No.643 of 2025:

¶77

3. Writ Appeal No.643 of 2025 is at the instance of PKP being partially dissatisfied with the judgment dated 17^th December, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.21376 of 2022.

¶78

3.1. With the substantial facts, as narrated by IDCO and culled out supra , additional facts which emanate from

¶79

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶80

Page 9 of 28

¶81

the Writ Appeal of PKP, reveal that he joined the Office of the IDCO in the year 2007 as Junior Engineer (Civil) on contractual basis being sponsored by a Government panel, the CGM (P&A) agreed to take into consideration all the Junior Engineers as per extant practice prevailing at the relevant point of time and on 30^th May, 2009, the Management of IDCO extended the benefit of house rent, medical allowance, conveyance allowance, uniforms, TA and DA in favour of PKP as admissible to Junior Engineer of the Corporation, but later on the Management found that PKP was not originally IDCO recruited employee and brought from Government panel, such benefits were withdrawn and sought to be recovered. However, later on, PKP being sponsored from Government panel in the year 2007 having joined on 9^th October, 2007, IDCO agreed to restore all facilities as per Government guidelines in view of Letter No.7135 dated 21^st April, 2007 of CGM (P&A) communicated to Engineer-in-Chief (Civil), Odisha and, accordingly, the petitioner was allowed all such benefits.

¶82

3.2. As per General Administration Department Resolution No.26108 dated 17^th September, 2013, the Government regularized services of all Junior Engineers sponsored from Government panel on completion of six years of service, but IDCO did not extend the said benefit in favour of PKP. Even after six years of completion in

¶83

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶84

Page 10 of 28

¶85

service in the year 2013, as PKP was not absorbed / regularized and his claim was rejected, having approached this Court, his matter was considered by the competent authorities. PKP was finally absorbed in the regular establishment by office order dated 26^th June, 2020. Since his past services were not recognized while specifying the effective date of regularization as 13^th March, 2020, PKP filed W.P.(C) No.21376 of 2022 for antedating the date with effect from 9^th October, 2013 as he completed six years continuous service in IDCO from the date of initial appointment, i.e ., 9^th October, 2013. He also claimed for consequential benefits like promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and upwards with all financial consequential benefits.

¶86

3.3. Though this Court by judgment dated 17^th December, 2014 disposed of the said writ petition by acknowledging completion of six years on contractual service from the date of initial appointment since 9^th October, 2007, directed for antedating effective date of regularization and extension of all service benefits “except financial benefits”. PKP being aggrieved by the same, i.e ., “except financial benefits”, has filed Writ Appeal No.643 of 2025.

¶87

THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS:

¶88

4. Sri Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate being assisted by Sri Pronoy Mohanty, learned counsel

¶89

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶90

Page 11 of 28

¶91

submitted that the factual narration in the pleadings are not disputed and date of initial appointment on contractual basis is also not disputed. He laid emphasis on IDCO Service Regulations, 2019 and submitted that this Court appreciating the submission of the counsel for IDCO that the process for regularization had commenced, vide order dated 16^th September, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.934 of 2016 directed IDCO to consider the case of PKP for regularization and grant of consequential benefits in terms of the Regulations framed by the Authority. Therefore, the learned Single Judge should not have found fault with the approach of the IDCO Authorities by fixing date of regularization as “13^th March, 2020”.

¶92

5. Sri Asok Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate being assisted by Sri Sanjib Mohanty, learned counsel vehemently submitted that since PKP was sponsored by the Government panel maintained by the Engineer-inChief at the relevant point of time and was engaged since 9^th October 2007, at right point of time had his case been taken up for consideration in view of 101^st and 79^th Board meetings held on 19^th May, 2015 and 29^th March, 2010 respectively, he would have been considered for regularization in terms of Rules, 2013 or the Notification dated 17.09.2013. Therefore, essentially, it is submitted on behalf of PKP that the case of the petitioner along

¶93

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶94

Page 12 of 28

¶95

with others was recommended for regularization based on the circular of the Government of Odisha in Works Department, Resolution No.16200-FE-II(P)-60/2008-W. Upon satisfactory completion of six years of uninterrupted engagement in view of its 118^th Board meeting of IDCO held on 13^th March, 2020, it is fervently urged by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for PKP that he should have been extended the financial benefits from the date of completion of six years in service having acknowledged the date of initial appointment as “9^th October, 2007”. The order of the learned Single Judge containing “except financial benefits” is required to be modified and suitable directions be issued to the Authorities to give effect to accordingly.

¶96

6. Considered the materials available in the record in the writ petition as well as the Writ Appeals. Having regard to the pleadings contained in the writ petition as well as writ appeals, it is transpired that the learned Single Judge has meticulously recorded undisputed factual position.

¶97

6.1. It is pertinent to note that PKP was initially appointed on contractual basis and joined service on 9^th October, 2007 being sponsored from the panel maintained by the Engineer-in-Chief (Civil).

¶98

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶99

Page 13 of 28

¶100

6.2. Rule 37 of the Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Method of Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Regulation, 2019 (Annexure-G to the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition) reads as follows:

¶101

“ 37. Transitory provisions for Existing Employee.— All persons holding different posts under the administrative control of the Corporation at the commencement of these Regulations shall be deemed to have been appointed as per provisions of these Regulations and their conditions of service shall be governed by the said provisions.”

¶102

6.3. It is also noteworthy at this juncture to have reference to 118^th Board meeting of IDCO held on 13^th March, 2020 (Annexure-J to the counter affidavit of the writ petition), wherein the following does find place:

¶103

“ The Resolution No.16200-FE-II(P)-60/2008-W of Works Department, Government of Odisha says that after satisfactory completion of six years of uninterrupted engagement, the Junior Engineer appointed on contractual basis out of the panel sponsored by the Committee of the Chief Engineer maintained by the Engineer-in-Chief (Civil) may be considered for absorption in regular establishment/post with regular scale of pay attached to the post of Junior Engineer, subject to availability of sanctioned vacant post in the cadre of the respective department.”

¶104

6.4. The learned Single Judge along with necessary material facts supported by documentary evidence having laid

¶105

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶106

Page 14 of 28

¶107

stress on such decision taken in the 118^th Board meeting of IDCO held on 13^th March, 2020 and IDCO Service Regulations, 2019, observed as follows:

¶108

“11. It is true that as per the decision of the board meeting of IDCO (Opposite Parties) dated 7th March 2020 (Annexure-J), the case of the Petitioner along with others were recommended for regularization based on the Circular of the Government of Odisha in Works Department in Resolution No.16200-FEII(P)-60/2008 upon satisfactory completion of 6 years of uninterrupted engagement. The Petitioner was undoubtedly engaged against a sanctioned post for being selected out of the panel prepared by the Government. So it is not the case that the Petitioner was never entitled to regularization prior to coming into force of 2019 Regulations, but it is also found true that in terms of the 2019 Regulations such employees already under administrative control of IDCO should be absorbed as such by operation of the transitory provisions in terms of Rule 37 of the Regulations. It is not that the provisions of 2019 Regulations prohibit regularization of service of any such employee prior to the date of coming into force of the same, and the instances of regularization in IDCO upon completion of six years of service prior to coming into force of 2019 Regulations are not dearth on record. Therefore, the submission of Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for IDCO to debar the Petitioners from the benefits of regularization from such date prior to coming into force of 2019 Regulations is found incorrect and unsubstantiated. Since it was the practice of the Opposite Parties-

¶109

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶110

Page 15 of 28

¶111

IDCO to regularize the service of Junior Engineers appointed out of the panel prepared by the Government upon completion of six years of their service in terms of Works Department Resolution, in the present case also there cannot be any hindrance for regularization of the Petitioner upon completion of his six years contractual service. Rather, it was the mandate of the resolution of the Government practiced by the Opposite Parties (IDCO) since long.

¶112

12. Apart from the above, while fixing the date of regularization prospectively with effect from the date of order i.e. 26th June 2020, no valid reason is seen in favour of the Opposite Parties-IDCO to deny regularization of the Petitioner with effect from such a prior date of coming into force of 2019 Regulations. It was the consistent approach of Opposite PartiesIDCO to regularize the service of the Petitioner upon his completion of contractual service for six years, which is clearly evident from different decisions of Board meetings of IDCO.”

¶113

6.5. Glance at the IDCO Service Regulations, 2019 would show that under Rule 5 the Board is vested with the power to determine the number of posts of various categories [as classified in Rule 4 thereof, such as Group-A, B, C and D] and create as many posts in each category as needed in respect of all groups of posts “with approval of Government”. Rule 18 ibid. dealing with “Zone of Consideration” lays down that for filling up of promotional posts, the Odisha Civil Services (Zone of Consideration for Promotion) Rules, 1988 and relevant provisions of the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies in

¶114

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶115

Page 16 of 28

¶116

Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 and Rules made thereunder would be followed.

¶117

6.6. This Court also takes cognizance of Rules 38, 39 and 41 of the IDCO Service Regulations, 2019, which read as follows:

¶118

“38. Amendment.—

¶119

The Board may amend any of the provisions of these Rules for reasons to be recorded in writing. The Corporation may follow rules and regulations of Government of Odisha in absence of / to supplement relevant provisions of the regulations.

¶120

39. Relaxation.—

¶121

Where the Board is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so, it may by order and for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules in respect of any class or category of persons in public interest.

¶122

41. Directives of the Government.— Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the regulations, the Government may from time to time issue such directives as they may consider

¶123

in to the recruitment and

¶124

necessary regard promotion of staff and those directive shall be binding on the Corporation for immediate implementation.”

¶125

6.7. Conjoint reading of afore-mentioned provisions, it may not be incorrect to say that the Resolutions of the General Administration Department with respect to

¶126

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶127

Page 17 of 28

¶128

regularization of employees in service are applicable to the Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (A Government of Odisha Undertaking).

¶129

6.8. The eligibility criteria has been specified in General Administration Department Notification No.26108/Gen., dated 17.09.2013 read with No.1066/Gen, dated 16.01.2014 sheds light in the present context to obviate the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Sri Pradipta Kumar Mohanty representing IDCO.

¶130

6.9. For ready reference the relevant Resolutions are reproduced hereunder:

¶131

“GAD-SC-RULES-0009-2013—26108/Gen Government of Odisha General Administration Department

¶132

***

¶133

RESOLUTION

¶134

Bhubaneswar dated the 17th September, 2013.

¶135

SUB: Regular appointment of existing contractual Group C and Group D employees who are not holding any post in contravention of any statutory Recruitment Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or any executive instruction in absence of such rules.

¶136

The policy regarding regular appointment of following categories of contractual Group „C’ and Group „D’ employees appointed under the State Government was under active consideration of Government for some time past. Contractual appointments/engagements made against

¶137

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶138

Page 18 of 28

¶139

contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department on abolition of the corresponding regular posts or contractual appointments/engagements made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department without abolition of any corresponding regular post in case of new offices or for strengthening of the existing offices/services, following the recruitment procedure prescribed for the corresponding regular posts and the principle of reservation of Posts and services for different categories of persons decided by the state Government from time to time.

¶140

Government after careful consideration and in supersession of the Resolutions/Orders/Instructions issued by different Departments of Government to that effect; except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, have been pleased to decide as follows:

¶141

1. Regular Appointment.—

¶142

(1) A gradation list of such contractual employees shall be prepared by the Appointing Authority on the basis of their date of appointment. In case, the dates of appointment of two or more employees are the same their inter-se position may be decided on the basis of their date of birth, taking the elder as senior.

¶143

(2) Regular appointment of the above categories of contractual employees shall be made on the date of completion of six years of service or from the date of publication of this Resolution, whichever is later, in the order in which their names appear in the gradation list prepared

¶144

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶145

Page 19 of 28

¶146

under para 1. The period of six years shall be counted from the date of contractual appointment prior to publication of this Resolution.

¶147

(3) Consequent upon regular appointment under the contractual post, if any, shall get re-converted to regular sanctioned post.

¶148

(4) In case the person concerned has crossed the upper age limit for entry into Government service on the date of contractual appointment for the corresponding regular post, the appointing authority shall allow relaxation of upper age limit.

¶149

2. Conditions of Service on Regular Appointment.—

¶150

(1) Regular Appointments: On the date of satisfactory completion of six years of contractual service or from the date of publication of this Resolution, whichever is later, they shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed. A formal order of regular appointment shall be issued by the appointing authority.

¶151

(2) Pay and other benefits: On regular appointment they shall be entitled to draw the time scale of pay plus Grade Pay with DA and other allowances as admissible in the corresponding pay band.

¶152

(3) Other conditions of service:

¶153

(a) The other conditions of service shall be such as has been provided in the relevant recruitment rules.

¶154

(b) The conditions of service in regard to matters not covered by this Resolution shall be the

¶155

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶156

Page 20 of 28

¶157

same as are or as may from time to time be prescribed by the State Government.

¶158

3. Interpretation.—

¶159

If any question arises relating to the interpretation of this Resolution, it shall be referred to the State Government whose decision thereon shall be final.

¶160

4. This has been concurred in by Finance Department and Law Department vide their UOR No.2909-ACSF, Dated 09.07.2013 and UOR No.1687/L., Dated 19.07.2013 respectively.

¶161

ORDER: Ordered that the Resolution be published in the extraordinary issue of the Odisha Gazette. Ordered also that copies of the Resolution be forwarded to all Departments of Government / all Heads of Departments/all Collectors / Registrar, Odisha High Court / Registrar, Odisha Administrative Tribunal Special Secretary, Odisha Public Service Commission / Secretary, Odisha Staff Selection Commission/ Secretary, Odisha Sub-ordinate Staff Selection Commission, Bhubaneswar.

¶162

By Order of the Governor NITEN CHANDRA

¶163

Special Secretary to Government”

¶164

*** *** ***

¶165

[No. 1066-GAD-SC-RULES-0009/2013/Gen.] General Administration Department RESOLUTION

¶166

The 16th January, 2014

¶167

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶168

Page 21 of 28

¶169

Sub: Regular Appointment of existing Contractual Group C and Group-D employees who are not holding any post in contravention of any statutory Recruitment Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or any executive instruction in absence of such rules.

¶170

1. As per General Administration Department Resolution No. 26108/Gen., Dated the 17th September, 2013, the following are the mandatory eligibility conditionalities for regularlzation of contractual appointees/engagements.

¶171

(i) Contractual appointments/engagements must have been made against contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department on abolition of the corresponding regular posts or contractual posts created with the concurrence of Finance Department without abolition of any corresponding regular post in case of new offices or for strengthening of the existing offices/services,

¶172

(ii) Such Contractual appointments/ engagements must have been made following the recruitment procedure prescribed for the corresponding regular posts, and

¶173

(iii) Principle of reservation of Posts must have been followed in case of such Contractual appointments/engagements.

¶174

In other words, no contractual appointee shall be eligible for regular appointment as per the aforesaid Resolution unless the mandatory eligibility conditionalities described above are fulfilled.

¶175

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶176

Page 22 of 28

¶177

2. A part from the contractual employees fulfilling the conditionalities elucidated in Para. 1 above, there are other categories of contractual employees engaged with or without creation of posts with the concurrence of Finance Department, without following the relevant recruitment and reservation Rules. There are also contractual employees engaged on out sourcing basis through service providing agencies. These contractual employees are not eligible for regularization as per the aforesaid Resolution.

¶178

3. In order to prevent misuse of the aforesaid Resolution, it is felt necessary to put appropriate mechanism in place to ensure that the necessary conditionalities as mentioned in Para. 1 are met.

¶179

4. Government, therefore, after careful consideration have been pleased to decide in the following manner.

¶180

(a) Proposal for regularization of contractual appointees/engagements as per the aforesaid Resolution shall be considered and approved by a High Power Committee to be constituted under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of the relevant Department in which the concerned Head of Department and FA/AFA of the Department shall be Members.

¶181

(b) In case the matter pertains to Administrative Department, then the High Power Committee shall be constituted under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of the Department with Special Secretary/Additional Secretary in charge of the

¶182

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶183

Page 23 of 28

¶184

office establishment and FA/AFA of the Department as Members.

¶185

(c) While considering the cases of regularization, High Power Committee shall at the outset ensure that the concerned appointments fulfil the mandatory eligibility conditionalities as elucidated in Para.1 above and thereafter consider the case on the basis of the stipulations contained under the heading „Regular Appointments’ of the General Administration Department Resolution No.26108/Gen, Dated the 17th September, 2013.

¶186

5. This Resolution has been issued with the advice of Finance Department communicated to General Administration Department vide their DOR No.5660ACSF, dated the 19th December, 2013.

¶187

Order: Ordered that the Resolution be published In the Extraordinary Issue of the Odisha Gazette. Ordered also that copies of the Resolution be forwarded to all departments of Government/all Heads of Departments/ all Collectors/Registrar, Odisha High Court/ Registrar, Odisha Administrative Tribunal/ Special Secretary, Odisha Public Service Commission/Secretary. Odisha Selection Staff Commission/Secretary, Odisha Sub-ordinate Staff Selection Commission. Bhubaneswar.

¶188

By Order of the Governor NITEN CHANDRA

¶189

Special Secretary to Government”

¶190

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶191

Page 24 of 28

¶192

6.10. It is crystal clear that PKP had been working since 2007 continuously and without any interruption on contractual basis, till his regularization in service in 2020 against vacant post with a consolidated amount. This is itself opposed to “public policy”. “Public policy” concerns the “public good” and “public interest”.

¶193

6.11. In the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited Vrs. Brojo Nath Ganguly, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 156 , it has been illuminatingly observed as follows:

¶194

“90. Should then our courts not advance with the times? Should they still continue to cling to outmoded concepts and outworn ideologies? Should we not adjust our thinking caps to match the fashion of the day? Should all jurisprudential development pass us by, leaving us floundering in the sloughs of nineteenth-century theories? Should the strong be permitted to push the weak to the wall? Should they be allowed to ride roughshod over the weak? Should the courts sit back and watch supinely while the strong trample under foot the rights of the weak? We have a Constitution for our country. Our judges are bound by their oath to „uphold the Constitution and the laws‟. The Constitution was enacted to secure to all the citizens of this country social and economic justice. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to all persons equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws. The principle deducible from the above discussions on this part of the case is in consonance with right and reason, intended to secure social and economic justice and conforms to the mandate of the great equality clause in Article

¶195

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶196

Page 25 of 28

¶197

14. This principle is that the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power. It is difficult to give an exhaustive list of all bargains of this type. No court can visualize the different situations which can arise in the affairs of men. One can only attempt to give some illustrations. For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties. It will apply where the inequality is the result of circumstances, whether of the creation of the parties or not. It will apply to situations in which the weaker party is in a position in which he can obtain goods or services or means of livelihood only upon the terms imposed by the stronger party or go without them. It will also apply where a man has no choice, or rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules may be. This principle, however, will not apply where the bargaining power of the contracting parties is equal or almost equal. This principle may not apply where both parties are businessmen and the contract is a commercial transaction. In today‟s complex world of giant corporations with their vast infra-structural organizations and with the State through its instrumentalities and agencies entering into almost every branch of industry and commerce, there can be myriad situations which result in unfair and

¶198

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶199

Page 26 of 28

¶200

unreasonable bargains between parties possessing wholly disproportionate and unequal bargaining power. These cases can neither be enumerated nor fully illustrated. The court must judge each case on its own facts and circumstances .”

¶201

6.12. It is pertinent to notice from paragraph-12 of the impugned judgment that there was consistent approach of IDCO to regularize the service of similarly situated persons on completion of contractual service of six years, which fact emanates from different decisions of Board meetings of IDCO. Had the case of PKP been considered at right point of time along with the similarly situated employees, he would have been entitled for such financial benefits also from the date of completion of six years from initial appointment. In such view of the matter, since PKP has actually worked in the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), he is entitled for financial benefits attached to such post since the day he completed six years of service from the date of initial appointment on 9^th October, 2007.

¶202

6.13. It is to be clarified that since PKP has not actually worked in the promotional post, he is not entitled to claim the financial benefits in the promotional post.

¶203

7. In view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis of the materials available on record, this Court does not find merit in Writ Appeal No.569 of 2025 ( Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Vrs. State of

¶204

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶205

Page 27 of 28

¶206

Signature Not Verified

¶207

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-Charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-Jul-2025 21:08:20

¶208

Odisha & others ). However, this Court interferes with the impugned judgment dated 17^th December, 2024 so far as it relates to Writ Appeal No.643 of 2025 ( Prasant Kumar Panigrahy Vrs. Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Odisha and others) to the extent that PKP is entitled to financial benefits for the period with effect from the date on which his regularization is directed to be antedated by the learned Single Judge in the post, where he has actually worked. Save and except such clarification, this Court does not interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

¶209

8. It is expected that the Authorities shall take steps to work out the direction contained in the judgment dated 17^th December, 2024 of the learned Single Judge with the aforesaid clarification so far as “financial benefits” is concerned.

¶210

9. With the above observation and direction, Writ Appeal No.569 of 2025 is dismissed; and Writ Appeal No.643 of 2025 stands disposed of. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall be disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶211

I agree.

¶212

(HARISH TANDON) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶213

(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE

¶214

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 29^th July, 2025//MRS/Laxmikant

¶215

W.A. Nos.569 of 2025 & 643 of 2025

¶216

Page 28 of 28

Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation,Khurda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation,Khurda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harihar Lenka Vs State of Odisha

Meerarani Rana Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Satya Sai Construction, Jajpur Vs State of Odisha

Prasant Kumar Panigrahy Vs Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation,Odisha

Maheswar Naik Vs State of Odisha

Madhusudan Sahu Vs Union of India