Upmanyu Rout Vs State of Odisha

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022

¶5

(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶6

Upamanyu Rout …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties

¶7

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. Subir Palit, Senior Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Rout, A.S.C. Mr. P.K. Tripathy, Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 to 4

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

8^th September 2025

¶12

B.P. Routray, J.

¶13

1. Heard Mr. Subir Palit, learned Senior Advocate for the

¶14

Petitioner, Mr. S.K. Rout, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the

¶15

State-Opposite Party No.1 and Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned Advocate for Opposite Parties 2 to 4.

¶16

2. The Petitioner, who is serving as Laboratory Assistant

¶17

(Chemistry) in the Institute of Textile Technology, Choudwar, has

¶18

Page 1 of 16

¶19

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶22

prayed for regularization of his service as such quashing the impugned order dated 22.9.2021 under Annexure-7.

¶23

3. The facts of the case are that, the Petitioner initially was appointed on 1.9.2000 pursuant to advertisement dated 7.8.2000 under Anneuxre-2. Initially the Petitioner was engaged as Laboratory Assistant on contractual basis for a period of one year as per the Office Order dated 31.8.2000 under Annexure-3 and subsequently his engagement as such has been extended from time to time by issuing fresh orders of engagement. It needs to be mentioned here that, the post of Laboratory Assistant (Chemistry) in the Institute of Textile Technology (Opposite Party No.3) was a sanctioned and vacant post prior to the engagement of the Petitioner.

¶24

4. Having continued so under Opposite Party No.3, the Petitioner earlier filed W.P.(C) No.13231 of 2010 praying for drawl of his remuneration at par with the counterparts continuing in similar establishments on contractual basis. This Court vide judgment dated 3.11.2017 directed to extend such benefit in favour of the Petitioner

¶25

and accordingly the same was granted in favour of the Petitioner after

¶26

Page 2 of 16

¶27

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶30

the Opposite Parties failed in their appeal against the judgment of this Court.

¶31

5. Again in W.P.(C) No.7923 of 2021, the Petitioner approached this Court praying for regularization of his service in the post and this Court vide its order dated 09.03.2021 directed the present Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on the same. Accordingly, the prayer for regularization of the Petitioner having been considered by the Opposite Party No.2, the same was rejected in the impugned order dated 22.09.2021 (Annexure-7) mainly on the ground that the Petitioner was appointed as a single candidate without any regular process of recruitment or wide circulation of advertisement in daily newspapers.

¶32

6. Mr. S. Palit, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submits that when the engagement of the Petitioner from 31.8.2000 till date is uninterrupted and the Petitioner is continuing against the sanctioned and vacant post, the right accrues in his favour for regularization and the Opposite Parties at this stage are estopped from raising such objections on the advertisement made in the year 2000. It is further submitted that the service of the Petitioner having been used by the Opposite Parties uninterruptedly for last 25 years, the same shows the

¶33

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022 Page 3 of 16

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶36

necessity of the Opposite Parties to absorb the Petitioner as the regular employee.

¶37

7. Mr. P.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 2 to 4 though is not disputing the initial engagement of the Petitioner from 31.8.2000 and his continuance in the post till date uninterruptedly, but submits that each of his engagement orders issued from time to time is

¶38

a fresh order and so, continuance of the Petitioner in the post cannot be taken as uninterrupted service to justify his claim for regularization. He further submits that when the Petitioner earlier approached this Court for regular remuneration along with his counterparts in the year 2010, he did not ask for his regularization in service and thereby he relinquished such relief in his favour to attract constructive res judicata in this regard. Accordingly, the Petitioner cannot claim the prayer for regularization subsequently. In this regard, he relies on the decision in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Nawab Hussain, AIR 1977 SC 1680 .

¶39

8. The State did not choose to file its counter to the writ petition.

¶40

Page 4 of 16

¶41

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶44

9. On the backdrop of such rival contentions advanced by the parties, the fact that remains admitted that the Petitioner was engaged on 31.8.2000 on contractual basis and is continuing till date as such with extension of his service. It further remains undisputed that the engagement of the Petitioner is pursuant to the advertisement dated 7.8.2000 under Annexure-2. Such facts when remain undisputed, the stand taken by Opposite Parties 2 to 4 in their counter is to the effect that the selection of the Petitioner and his engagement is not found in conformity with regular recruitment and selection process.

¶45

10. It needs to be answered here that, the engagement of the Petitioner as Laboratory Assistant by virtue of the engagement order dated 31.8.2000 and his continuance in the post till date is never questioned by any of the Opposite Parties at any point of time. When the Opposite Parties 2 to 4 are utilizing the service of the Petitioner in the post of Laboratory Assistant (Chemistry) since 1.9.2000 till date uninterruptedly, they have never asked either to the Petitioner or the Principal of the Institution raising doubt over the engagement and continuance of the Petitioner in the post. At the same time, it is also not disputed by the Opposite Parties that the post of Laboratory Assistant

¶46

Page 5 of 16

¶47

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022

¶48

Signature Not Verified

¶49

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶50

(Chemistry) in which the Petitioner is continuing till date is a regular, vacant and sanctioned post of the institution.

¶51

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in plethora of decisions propounded the principles of regularization with regard to the continuance in a regular and sanctioned post. In Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 when the principles have been enumerated in that regard, in Jagoo vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 , the Hon”ble Supreme Court have observed as follows:-

¶52

“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 one-time 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

¶53

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022 Page 6 of 16

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶56

argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit acknowledgement 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.

¶57

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.”

¶58

12. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Dharam Singh

¶59

and others vs. State of U.P. and another, decided on 19^th August 2025 in Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018, by referring to such earlier decisions in Uma Devi (supra), Jagoo (supra), Shripal and another vs.

¶60

Page 7 of 16

¶61

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022

¶62

Signature Not Verified

¶63

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶64

Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, have observed

¶65

as follows:-

¶66

“11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to nonsuit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State’s arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer’s own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:

¶67

“ 14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi

¶68

Page 8 of 16

¶69

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022

¶70

Signature Not Verified

¶71

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶72

cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices.

¶73

15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:

¶74

“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

¶75

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022 Page 9 of 16

¶76

Signature Not Verified

¶77

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶78

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.

¶79

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:

¶80

• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled 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.

¶81

Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as

¶82

Page 10 of 16

¶83

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022

¶84

Signature Not Verified

¶85

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶86

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.

¶87

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.

¶88

• 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.

¶89

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.”

¶90

xxx

¶91

xxx xxx

¶92

Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments)

¶93

Page 11 of 16

¶94

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022

¶95

Signature Not Verified

¶96

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶97

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.

¶98

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 a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.”

¶99

13. In the case at hand, as stated above, the post in which the Petitioner is continuing was a vacant, regular and sanctioned post on the date of engagement of the Petitioner and it continued till date with the engagement of the Petitioner uninterruptedly. The selection and appointment of the Petitioner pursuant to the advertisement was never W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022 Page 12 of 16

¶100

Signature Not Verified

¶101

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶102

questioned or objected by the authority at any point of time even after claim of regularization is raised by the Petitioner. Therefore, what is contended by the Opposite Parties that his selection to the post was not by virtue of the advertisement widely published or lack of regular recruitment process is not found substantiated. It is admitted on the part of Opposite Parties 2 to 4 that till 2021, before commencement of the Bye Laws of Opposite Party No.3 with regard to the engagement of employees, there was no prescribed procedure or guideline in the given field for engaging different employees of the institution.

¶103

14. As stated above, the Petitioner appeared the interview pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-2 and having been selected for the post was given the engagement order vide Annexure-3 and consequently joined as such on 1.9.2000. Such selection, engagement and continuance of the Petitioner in the post is never questioned or objected by the authority at any point of time. This being so and the fact that the post in which the Petitioner was engaged and continuing is a sanctioned and regular post, it shows the perineal nature of the post in the institution and the requirement of manning the post thereof. Therefore, it is established from all angels that the engagement

¶104

and continuance of the Petitioner was a necessity on the part of the

¶105

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022 Page 13 of 16

¶106

Signature Not Verified

¶107

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶108

institution (Opposite Parties). But by not regularizing his service as such the Opposite Parties are diverting from their duty as model employer. It needs to be stated here that Opposite Parties 2 to 4 are the institutions under the State authority and therefore expected to be the model employer.

¶109

15. What is urged by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 2 to 4 that the subsequent prayer for regularization of the Petitioner is barred by constructive res judicata is not found convincing for the reason that the Petitioner while claimed for remuneration at par with his counterparts did not state that such counterparts were in regular service. His prayer was to release the remuneration at par with such contractual employees engaged in other similar institutions and therefore, the claim for his regularization cannot be considered as an inseparable part of the whole claim for equal remuneration in order to attract the doctrine of constructive res judicata . The decision in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Nawab Hussain (supra) relied on by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 2 to 4, is having different facts that the same was in respect of disciplinary proceeding where his earlier prayer was the part of the

¶110

whole claim and connected to subsequent prayer to constitute the

¶111

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022

¶112

Page 14 of 16

¶113

Signature Not Verified

¶114

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶115

whole claim thereby attracting the principles of constructive res judicata , considering the fact the disciplinary action is a quasi-judicial proceeding.

¶116

16. In the case at hand, the prayer for getting same remuneration as

¶117

to the counterpart contractual employees and the prayer for regularization in service being two different claims cannot thus be considered as a part of the whole claim and therefore, no limit can be imposed on the part of the Petitioner restricting him from making subsequent claim relating to his regularization of service.

¶118

17. In view of the discussions made in the above paragraphs and for the reasons stated, when the Petitioner is found continuing in the post uninterruptedly for the last 25 years without any objection from any corner either with regard to his selection or continuance in the post, this Court does not find any impediment to direct for regularization of the service of the Petitioner in the post of Laboratory Assistant (Chemistry).

¶119

18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to regularize the service of the Petitioner with

¶120

Page 15 of 16

¶121

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022

¶122

Signature Not Verified

¶123

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Sep-2025 11:21:29

¶124

immediate effect and granting such consequential benefits in favour of

¶125

the Petitioner.

¶126

(B.P. Routray) Judge

¶127

B.K. Barik/Secretary

¶128

Page 16 of 16

¶129

W.P.(C) No.17021 of 2022

Upmanyu Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upmanyu Rout 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

Smrutiranjan Biswal Vs Alok Dehuri, Oas

Kanunakar Panda Vs Pitambar Panda

Sanjaya Ku.Panigrahi Vs State

Sudam Charan Mallik Vs Surendra Barik

Muktikanta Barik Vs Radhakanta Barik

Laxmi Kanta Padhi Vs State of Odisha