CUTTACK, India, Feb. 19 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on Jan. 19:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 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:

"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.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xwWBQrXaOVZNk0totjCTvJEuWRuMLgpD1lENQsZ0WoNr&caseno=WA/1303/2025&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010370752025&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.