WA/1203/2025 of STATE OF ODISHA Vs RABI CHARAN RATH on 7 July 2026

1. Heard.

2. The I.A. No.3048 of 2025 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 207 days in filing the present writ appeal. Considering the averments made in the I.A. and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned.

3. By means of this application, the Appellant-State has called in question the judgment and order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.34903 of 2020, whereby the rejection order dated 12.09.2019, by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary Higher Education Department for regularisation of the Respondent, was quashed and a direction was issued to regularise the service of Respondent No.1 against the post of Research Officer and to extend consequential retiral benefits.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, we find no infirmity warranting interference in exercise of our intra-Court appellate jurisdiction broadly agreeing with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, and the following.

5. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that the initial engagement of Respondent No.1 was dehors the statutory provisions governing appointments in the University; that he was continuing against a non-sanctioned post; and, therefore, the direction for regularisation runs contrary to the principles enunciated in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1.

6. The above submission, however, overlooks the peculiar factual matrix of the present case.

7. The record reveals that Respondent No.1 was initially engaged as a Research Assistant in the year 1987 on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.800/- per month and was subsequently appointed as Research Officer in the year 1993 on a consolidated remuneration of Rs.1,500/- per month. Thereafter, he continued uninterruptedly for several decades under the knowledge, supervision and control of the competent authorities of the University as well as the State Government. The materials on record further indicate that the State authorities periodically revised and enhanced his remuneration from time to time, including enhancement to Rs.7,500/- per month in the year 2005, Rs.9,300/- per month in the year 2012 and Rs.15,600/- per month in the year 2013. The record also discloses that proposals relating to the creation and continuance of the post of Research Officer were considered at different administrative levels and that Respondent No.1 continued to discharge the duties attached to the said post till his retirement on 31.05.2019. Significantly, throughout the aforesaid period, no objection was raised regarding his eligibility, competence or the nature of duties performed by him. The rejection of his claim was founded substantially on the plea that the post had not been sanctioned or created in the manner contemplated under the relevant statutory provisions, notwithstanding the fact that his services had been continuously utilised for more than three decades.

8. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 INSC 998, wherein, relying upon the earlier decisions in Jaggo vs. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal & another vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the constitutional obligation of the State as a model employer. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are as follows: “17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) 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.

18. 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.”

9. What assumes significance is that the claim of Respondent No.1 was not rejected on the ground of lack of qualification, unsuitability, misconduct or any illegality attributable to him. The foundation of the rejection order was confined to the contention that the post had not been sanctioned in the manner contemplated under the governing statutory provisions. In the meanwhile, the State and the University continued to avail his services for decades in respect of duties which were evidently of a recurring and continuing nature. It is in this backdrop that the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh (supra), regarding the constitutional obligation of the State as a model employer and the impermissibility of extracting regular work through precarious arrangements for prolonged periods, assume relevance to the present case.

10. In our view, the learned Single Judge rightly held that after having continuously availed the services of Respondent No.1 for more than three decades and having permitted him to serve till the age of superannuation, the State and the University could not legitimately deny him regular status and the consequential retiral benefits solely on the ground of defects in the manner of creation or sanction of the post. To permit such a course would amount to allowing the employer to take advantage of its own omissions at the cost of an employee who devoted the entirety of his service career to the institution.

11. We are, therefore, satisfied that the order dated 12.09.2019 did not warrant interference with the well-reasoned conclusions recorded by the learned Single Judge. The directions issued for regularisation of the services of Respondent No.1 against the post of Research Officer and for extending the consequential pensionary and retiral benefits are consistent with the legal principles governing public employment.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. The judgment and order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is affirmed.

13. The entire exercise for implementation of the directions contained in the impugned judgment, including regularisation of the services of Respondent No.1 against the post of Research Officer and notional fixation of pay for the purpose of determination of qualifying service, pensionary and other retiral benefits, together with release of all consequential dues admissible to him, shall be completed within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks from the date of communication of this order.

14. Having regard to the fact that Respondent No.1 rendered service to the institution for more than three decades and retired on 31.05.2019, the Appellant-Authorities shall ensure that the aforesaid exercise is carried out within the stipulated period without compelling him to undertake any further round of litigation for enforcement of the benefits flowing from the present order. Pending I.A.s, if any, are consequently disposed of.

(Chittaranjan Dash)

Judge

(Krishna S. Dixit)

Judge

A.K.Pradhan/Bijay/Sarbani/Priyanka

Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 14-Jul-2026 15:49:13 Signature Not Verified