Sarat Chandra Patra Vs State of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.A. NO.3190 OF 2024

In the matter of an appeal under clause-10 of the letters patent of Patna High Court read with Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 from the Common Order dated 29.10.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.15097 of 2014.

¶4

--------------
Sarat Chandra Patra …. Appellant
-versus-
….
State of Odisha and others Respondents

¶5

Advocates Appeared in this case

¶6

For Appellant - M/s. Sanjib Mohanty and B. Biswal, Advocates For Respondents - Mr. S.B. Mohanty Addl. Govt. Advocate

¶7

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

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

¶10

¶11

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 29.01.2026

¶12

¶13

PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J .

¶14

This Intra-Court Appeal filed by the employee is directed against

¶15

a Common Order dated 29.10.2024, whereby his W.P.(C) No.15097 of

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

2014 has been negatived relaying upon certain decisions of the Apex Court.

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant-employee vehemently argues that his client has been in service against a sanctioned post on daily wage basis w.e.f. 14.12.2000; the wages came to be enhanced periodically and that there is absolutely no complaint whatsoever about the performance of the Appellant. He further submits that the decisions relied upon in structuring the impugned order are not much relevant in view of march of law relating to regularization beginning from State of Karnataka v. Umadevi , (2006) 4 SCC 1 to Jaggo v. Union of India , 2024 INSC 1034 and then to Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. , 2025 INSC 998. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the appeal.

¶19

3. Learned AGA vehemently opposes the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the reasons on which it has been structured. He tells us that there being no sanctioned post, learned Single Judge is more than justified in having a view that Courts cannot arrogate to themselves the power to create posts. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ appeal.

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

¶22

4.1. Law of regularization in public service is never static. It has moved from The Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate v. State of Karnataka , AIR 1990 SC 883 to Umadevi supra and then to Jaggo supra , which has been reiterated broadly in Dharam Singh supra . If the entry point is not illegal, the service rendered would be irregular and not illegal. If such irregular service is rendered against a sanctioned post, then there is an absolute obligation to regularize the same, if the employee has put in a long service at least not less than one decade. If there is no such sanctioned post, the long service itself indicates requirement of such services and therefore, the State may have to create supernumerary posts, if need be. However, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the Appellant, we need not travel so far, inasmuch as record reveals that the Appellant has been working against a sanctioned post i.e., Watchman-cum-Sweeper. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge. That apart, the hallmark decision of Apex Court in Jaggo supra came only in December, 2024 i.e., after the passing of impugned order.

¶23

Page 3 of 5

¶24

4.2. The submission of learned AGA that the decision of the learned Single Judge is well structured because it internalizes Apex Court decision in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmchari Sanghatana , (2009) 8 SCC 556 and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the matter, is bit difficult to countenance. That was a case essentially relating to power of the State to create posts. In the light of Jaggo supra and Dharam Singh supra that question would pale into insignificance. In Dharam Singh supra , the Apex Court at Para 19 & (i) has observed as under:

¶25

“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:

¶26

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 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.”

¶27

In the above circumstances, this Writ Appeal succeeds; the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set at naught; Appellant’s W.P.(C) No.15097 of 2014 having been allowed, a Writ of Mandamus issues to Respondents to grant or cause regularization of services of the

¶28

Page 4 of 5

¶29

Appellant with effect from the date he completed 10 years of uninterrupted services and grant all consequential benefits to him within an outer limit of three months without giving scope for contempt proceedings.

¶30

Costs made easy.

¶31

Web copy of the judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶32

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶33

(Chittaranjan Dash)

¶34

Judge

¶35

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 29^th day of January 2026 /Anisha