WP(C)/24838/2023 of PRAHALLAD BARIK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 29 August 2026

ORDER

29.08.2026

6. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice to the opposite parties and after hearing both the parties to pass following order:- I. To quash the order of rejection under Anenxure-1 passed by the Opp. party No.2. II. To issue direction to the Opp. parties to regularize the service of the Peitotner w.e.f 23.05.1984 as on the said date his junior was regularised with all financial benefits of a regular employee by modifying the earlier regularisaitoln order in favour of the Peitonter dtd.04.08.2014 udner Anenxure-12 and

III. Issue direction to the Opp. parties to grant all the financial benefits from the date of regularisation with

// 2 //

GPF benefit as a regular employee and settle the entire differential arrear amount within a stipulate period. And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. And for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a Casual Labourer on daily wages basis in the establishment of Opp. party Nos.4 & 5 w.e.f 23.06.1981. It is contended that while so continuing, Petitioner when was disengaged w.e.f 24.12.1988, he carried the matter before the Labour Court in I.D. Case No.103 of 1990. Learned Labour Court vide award dtd.26.10.1999, while declaring the termination of the Petitioner as illegal, directed for his re-instatement in service with full back wages.

4.1. It is contended that challenging the award so passed in I.D. Case No.103 of 1990, State moved this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.3451 of 2002. However the said Writ Petition was also dismissed vide order dtd.31.03.2009 by upholding the award passed by the Labour Court.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that by the time the Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dtd.31.03.2009, persons similarly situated and engaged after engagement of the Petitioner as Casual Labourer on daily wage basis had already got the benefit of regularisation w.e.f 23.05.1984 onwards. It is contended that even though similarly situated casual labourers engaged after the petitioner got the benefit of regularisation, but because of the illegal order of dis-engagement,

// 3 //

Petitioner was deprived to get similar benefit. After dismissal of the Writ Petition by this Court, while upholding the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Petitioner should have been engaged with due regularisation in his services from the date his juniors got such benefits so admitted by Opp. Party No.3 in his letter dtd.11.04.2011 under Annexure-6.

4.3. However, Petitioner in the alternate, was again re- engaged as a casual labourer w.e.f 05.05.2010, even though the back wages for the entire break period was paid to him.

4.3. It is contended that since the disengagement of the Petitioner was held as illegal by the Labour Court, so upheld by this Court in its order dtd.31.03.2009 in OJC No.3451 of 2002 and direction was there to re-instate the Petitioner with full back wages, it has to be held that Petitioner continued all through as a Casual Labourer. Since similarly situated casual labourers engaged after the Petitioner have got the benefit of regularisation so admitted in Anenxure-6 vide letter dtd.11.04.2011, Petitioner instead of being engaged once again on casual basis, should have been appointed as against a regular Class-IV post.

4.4. However, Petitioner claiming similar benefit of regularisation basing on Annexure-6 and further communication issued by Opp. Party No.2 in his letter dt.29.04.2011 under Annexure-7, approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.1244 of 2011. The Tribunal vide order dtd.30.09.2011 under Annexure-8 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim for regularisation, the same was rejected vide order dt.25.07.2012 under Annexure-9.

// 4 //

4.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.1244 of 2011, Petitioner’s claim for regularisation when was rejected vide order dt.25.07.2012 under Annexure-9, Petitioner challenging such order again approached the Tribunal in OA. No.1670 of 2012. The Tribunal vide order dtd.25.11.2012 under Annexure-10 disposed of the O.A with the following order: “Heard both parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was initially engaged as a casual labourer. Subsequently he was engaged in LBD Farm, Khapuria, Cuttack, since 23.5.1984. He was retrenched as consequence of which he approached the Industrial Dispute Tribunal and the Industrial Dispute Tribunal directed his re-instatement holding the termination illegal as per Annx.2. Thereafter, the Govt. filed an appeal in the Hon'ble High Court, which was dismissed as per Annx.3 upholding the decision of the Industrial Dispute Tribunal. The applicant was reinstated thereafter but though in the mean time his juniors have been regularized the applicant has not been regularized till date despite being allowed back wages apparently on the plea that the Finance Department had imposed a ban for regularization of employees. Heard learned standing counsel. He bases his case on the counter. Heard both parties It is the settled position of law in the case of Smt. Meera Piri Vrs. State of Orissa reported in 2007 (OLR) decided in OJC No.6336/1999, and State of Orissa-Vr Hrudananda Panda (2010) 2 ATT(HOC, 61 that in case a junior has been regularized the applicant's case for regularization is to be taken upon unless the applicant is an illegal appointee. In this case the engagement of the applicant has been upheld by the Industrial Dispute Tribunal and subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. In view of the said position and as his juniors have since been regularized as stated by the applicant,

// 5 //

the case of the applicant for regularization be considered immediately, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of these orders at the earliest, under intimation to the applicant. Appropriate orders regularizing the applicant be passed taking into account the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Court.

With these orders the O.A. is disposed of.”

4.6. It is contended that in term of the order passed under Annexure-10 and the communication issued under Annexure-11, , Petitioner was absorbed in the regular establishment vide order dtd.04.08.2014 under Annexure-12, with the condition that Petitioner will be enrolled under the new Pension Scheme as per the provision of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, amended vide Finance Deptt. Notification dtd.17.09.2005.

4.7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that disengagement of the Petitioner w.e.f 24.12.1988 was held as illegal by the Labour Court with a direction for re-instatement with full back wages, further upheld by this Court. But by the time, the Writ Petition was dismissed and Petitioner was re-engaged as a Casual Labourer with full back wages w.e.f 05.05.2010, persons engaged much after the petitioner as Casual Labourer on daily wage basis since have got the benefit of regularisation, which is admitted in Annexures-6 & 7, Petitioner should have been regularised from the date his juniors namely, Kapileswar Sahoo was regularised vide order dt.23.05.1984 with his date of engagement being 15.04.1982.

4.8. It is contended that claiming regularisation from the date his juniors have been so regularised, Petitioner approached the Tribunal once again in O.A. No.585 of 2017. The application on being transferred to this Court in WPC (OA ) No.585 of 2017, was

// 6 //

disposed of on 4.4.2023, with a direction on the Opp. Party No.2 to consider the Petitioner’s grievance. However, without proper appreciation of the admission made in Annexure-6 & 7 , petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularisation from the date his juniors have got the said benefit, was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.12.07.2023 under Anenxure-1, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.C(OA ) No.585 of 2017, so disposed of on 04.04.2023.

4.9. It is contended that since casual labourer engaged after the petitioner got the benefit of regularisation, vide different orders, the first one being order dt.23.05.1984, so admitted in Annexures-6 & 7, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get similar benefit of retrospective regularisation with all service and financial benefit.

4.10. Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that with quashing of the impugned order dt.12.07.2023 under Annexure-1 of Opp. Party No.2, Petitioner be treated to be a regular employee from the date his juniors have been regularised vide Order dtd.23.05.1984, so admitted in Anexures-6 & 7, with release of all consequential service and financial benefits. It is however contended that, Petitioner in the meantime has retired from his services on attaining the age of Superannuation on 28.02.2026.

5. Learned Addl. Govt. on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed.

5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner while working as a Casual Labourer w.e.f 23.06.1981 was terminated on 24.12.1988 and subsequently after dismissal of the Writ Petition in OJC No.3451 of 2002, he was re-engaged as a casual labourer w.e.f

// 7 //

05.05.2010, Petitioner remained out of employment for the period from 24.12.1988 to 05.05.2010. Hence, it cannot be held that Petitioner continued as a Casual Labourer all through. Accordingly, he is not similarly situated as like the casual labourers so regularised vide different orders reflected in the communication issued under Anenxures-6 & 7.

5.2. It is contended that since Petitioner was disengaged while continuing as a Casual Labourer on 24.12.1988 and he got the benefit of re-engagement as a casual labourer w.e.f 05.05.2010, Petitioner is not similarly situated as like the Casual Labourers so regularised and reflected in Annexure-6 communication dtd.11.04.2011. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner’s claim in terms of the earlier passed by this Court in WPC (OA) No.585 of 2017 was duly considered and rejected vide the impugned order dtd.12.07.2023 under Annexure-1.

In support of such submission, reliance was placed to para-7 & 8 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows.”

7. That, the service of the Petitioner was terminated on 24.12.1988 and the said termination Order was challenged by the Petitioner by registering an Industrial Dispute case before the learned Labour Court. Bhubaneswar bearing ID Case No. 103 of 1990. The said ID Case No. 103/1990 was disposed of by the learned Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Bhubaneswar on 26.10.1999 with a finding that the termination of Sri Prahallad Barik by the Management of LBD Farm. Khapuria, Cuttack w.e.f 24.12.1988 is neither legal nor justified. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar further held that, the Workman Sri Barik is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages.

8. That, the State had preferred to challenge the award dtd.26.10.1999 of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar passed in I.D. Case No.103/1990 by way of filing a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa bearing OJC NO.3451 of 2002. However, the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa dismissed the OJC No.3451 of 2002 vide their order dtd.31.03.2009 and directed the Peitotner-Management,

// 8 //

to implement the award in I.D. Case No.103 of 1990 by re-instating the workman-Opp. Party No.1-Prahallad Barik in OJC No.3451 of 2002 and making payment of back wages to him within a period of one month from the date of communication of the order.

5.3. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order has been rightly passed and it requires no interference.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was engaged as a Casual Labourer on daily wage basis in the establishment of Opp. party Nos.4 & 5 w.e.f 23.06.1981. While so continuing, Petitioner when was terminated on 24.12.1988, he moved the Labour forum in I.D. Case No.103 of 1990. Learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar vide its award dtd.26.10.1999, held the termination of the Petitioner as illegal and while holding so, directed for his re-instatement with full back wages.

6.1. Order passed by the learned Labour Court was assailed by the State in OJC No.3458 of 2002. However, the said Writ Petition was dismissed vide order dtd.31.03.2009 and thereby order passed by the Labour Court was upheld. Pursuant to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, Petitioner was re-engaged as a Casual Labourer w.e.f 05.05.2010 with payment of all the back wages as due and admissible.

6.2. However, as found from the record, by the time Petitioner was so re-engaged as a Casual Labourer w.e.f 05.05.2010, persons engaged as Casual Labourers subsequent to the Petitioner, had already been regularised from the year 1984 onwards and the same is admitted by Opp. Party No.3 in his letter dtd.11.04.2011 under Annexure-6, as well as by Opp. Party No.2 in his letter dt.29.04.2011 under Annexure-7. However, on the face of such admission made by Opp. party No.3 as well as Opp.

// 9 //

Party No.2, Petitioner was regularised vide order dtd.04.08.2014 under Annexure-12 and it was held that petitioner will be covered under NPS. Claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation from the date similarly situated casual labourers were regularised, so admitted in Annexures-6 & 7, was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.12.07.2023 under Anenxure-1, on the ground that Petitioner was not in employment for the period from 24.12.1988 to 05.05.2010 and accordingly not entitled to get the benefit.

6.3. Since termination of the Petitioner w.e.f 24.12.1988 was declared as illegal by the learned Labour Court with a direction to re-instate the Petitioner with full back wages, and it was upheld by this Court with dismissal of the Writ Petition vide order dtd.21.03.2009 and in terms of the award Petitioner was paid with all the back wages as due and admissible, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is required to be treated to be in service all through w.e.f 23.06.1981 and there is no break in engagement.

6.4. As found from Annexure-6 as well as Annexure-7 and which is not disputed, similarly situated casual labourers engaged after the Petitioner got the benefit of regularisation much earlier, more particularly vide order dt.23.05.1984, where such engagement as Casul Labourer was made on 15.04.1982.

6.5. This Court taking into account the nature of award passed by the labour Court, so upheld by this Court and the fact that Petitioner got the back wages as due and admissible for the entire break period of service, held the Petitioner to be in continuous engagement as a Casual Labourer all through w.e.f 27.06.1981. Taking into account the fact that casual labourers engaged after the petitioner more particularly on 15.04.1982, have got the

// 10 //

benefit of regularisation vide order dtd.23.05.1984, held the Petitioner however entitled to get similar benefit of regularisation w.e.f 27.06.1991, as order of regularisation of the Petitioner’s junior vide order dt.23.05.1984, was never assailed at any point of time prior to disengagement of the Petitioner on 24.12.1988 and such a casual labourer so engaged on 27.06.1981 was regularised vide order dtd.27.06.1991.

6.6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court directs Opp. party Nos.2 & 3 to pass an appropriate order by treating the Petitioner to be a regular employee w.e.f 27.06.1991 with all consequential financial benefit. However, since the Petitioner has retired in the meantime and attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2026, the entire period from 27.06.1991 to 28.02.2026, be regularised on notional basis and Petitioner be sanctioned with pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. This Court directs Opp. party Nos.2 & 3 to complete the entire exercise within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of this order.

7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

Judge

sangita Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 31-Aug-2026 19:12:07 Signature Not Verified