State of Odisha Vs Jaya Krushna Senapati

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WA No. 1102 of 2025

(An Appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948, read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Rule-6 of Chapter-III of the Rules of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, 1948 challenging the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4827 of 2020)

¶4

State of Odisha and Anr.

¶5

…. Appellants

¶6

Mr. Saroj Kumar Jee, A.G.A. -versus-

¶7

…. Jaya Krushna Senapati & Respondents others

¶8

Mr. Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

¶11

Date of Judgment: 19.01.2026

¶12

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

¶13

This intra-Court Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4827 of 2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the present Respondent No.1 was allowed and the Appellants were directed to regularise his services at par with one Surendra Nath Sahoo, with consequential benefits.

¶14

W.A. No.1102 of 2025 Page 1 of 7

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Appellants and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 at length and have carefully perused the materials available on record.

¶16

The material facts are not in serious dispute. Respondent No.1 was engaged on 12.08.1994 as a Work Sarkar on Daily Labour Roll (DLR) basis under the Khurda Municipality. He continued to discharge his duties uninterruptedly for more than two decades. During this period, his services were admittedly utilised by the Municipality, and he was entrusted with the work attached to the post in question. It is also borne out from the record that another employee, namely, Surendra Nath Sahoo, whose name appeared in the same list of DLR employees, was granted the benefit of regularisation pursuant to judicial directions. The grievance of Respondent No.1 was that despite long and continuous service and despite being similarly circumstanced with the said Surendra Nath Sahoo, he was denied regularisation. His case was recommended by the Municipality, and an affidavit seeking regularisation was filed in the year 2024. However, no positive decision was taken, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, upon considering the factual matrix and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, granted relief to the petitioner.

¶17

W.A. No.1102 of 2025

¶18

The principal contentions urged on behalf of the State in the present appeal are threefold. Firstly, it is contended that at the time of initial engagement of Respondent No.1 in the year 1994, there was no sanctioned post against which he could have been appointed, and therefore his engagement was not merely irregular but illegal. Secondly, it is urged that the post of Work Sarkar stood abolished with effect from 20.06.2015, and in the absence of an existing post, no direction for regularisation could have been issued. Thirdly, it is argued that although an affidavit was filed in the year 2024 seeking regularisation, the same could not be acceded to since no sanctioned post was available, and hence the learned Single Judge erred in issuing a positive direction instead of, at best, directing consideration of the case.

¶19

Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgment by contending that notwithstanding the absence of a sanctioned post, the respondent has rendered long and continuous service for more than two decades, has crossed the age of 59 years and is on the verge of superannuation. It was further urged that his denial of regularisation at this stage would cause grave prejudice.

¶20

The aforesaid submissions, though appealing at first blush, cannot be accepted in view of the settled position of law. In Jaggo vs. Union of India & Others , reported in 2024

¶21

W.A. No.1102 of 2025 Page 3 of 7

¶22

SCC OnLine SC 3826 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying on the earlier precedents including Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, has held as follows:

¶23

“ 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 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.

¶24

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

¶25

W.A. No.1102 of 2025

¶26

Page 4 of 7

¶27

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.”

¶28

Having considered the record and the submissions advanced, this Court finds no merit in the writ appeal. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the undisputed fact that Respondent No.1 had rendered long, continuous service for more than twenty years and that his services were utilised by the State instrumentalities throughout this period. More the of hostile discrimination was importantly, plea substantiated by the fact that a similarly situated employee, namely, Surendra Nath Sahoo, was extended the benefit of regularisation.

¶29

The reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo (Supra) is apposite. The Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that where the State continues to take work from an employee for years together, taking advantage of his weak bargaining power, it cannot subsequently turn around and deny equitable relief

¶30

W.A. No.1102 of 2025 Page 5 of 7

¶31

solely on technical pleas, particularly when parity with similarly situated employees is demonstrably established. The decision underscores that fairness and non-arbitrariness remain guiding principles even in matters concerning irregular appointments.

¶32

The contentions relating to absence of a sanctioned post at the inception and abolition of the post, though relevant, cannot be examined in isolation. The State cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate having utilised the services of Respondent No.1 for decades and having regularised another employee from the same pool, it cannot deny similar treatment to the respondent on the eve of his superannuation. The filing of the affidavit in 2024 seeking regularisation only reinforces the fact that the claim was alive and under consideration, and the denial thereof was not based on any fresh or distinguishing material.

¶33

Applying the ratio of Jaggo (Supra) to the facts at hand, this Court is of the considered view that the State, having extracted continuous service from the respondent for over two decades, cannot be permitted to resile behind technical objections of non-sanctioned post or subsequent abolition of the post, particularly when a similarly situated employee has been granted regularisation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has unequivocally held that prolonged

¶34

W.A. No.1102 of 2025 Page 6 of 7

¶35

engagement of an employee, coupled with the State’s conscious utilisation of his services, creates a legitimate expectation which cannot be defeated by taking shelter under procedural or administrative infirmities. To do so would amount to institutionalising exploitation arising out of unequal bargaining power, a course of action which stands expressly deprecated in Jaggo (Supra). Denial of parity in such circumstances would not only offend the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness, but would also undermine the constitutional obligation of the State to act as a model employer.

¶36

Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference in intra-court appeal. The present Writ Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

¶37

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶38

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶39

A.K.Pradhan/Bijay/Sarbani

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

W.A. No.1102 of 2025

¶42

Page 7 of 7

¶43

Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior StenographerReason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACKDate: 22-Jan-2026 13:21:44

State of Odisha v. Jaya Krushna Senapati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Jaya Krushna Senapati

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

State of Odisha Vs Sanatana Sahoo

Union of India Vs Ajit Kumar Khuntia

Nirupama Malik Vs State of Orissa

Premchand Chhatai Vs M/S Tata Power Southern Odisha Distribution Ltd., Berhampur

The Zonal Manager, Uco Bank, Zonal Office, Balasore Vs Pabitra Jena

Canara Bank,Bangaluru Vs the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khorda