IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7686 of 2024 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Sushil Kumar Rout …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. A. Das, Sr. Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv. for O.P.3 PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Hearing:30.06.2026 and Date of Judgment:30.06.2026 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 2. Pursuant to the order dtd.13.05.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by the Department with service of copy on the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as // 2 // well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.3 in Court. The same be kept in record. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why: 1) The order of rejection dtd. 02.03.2024 issued by OP No. 2 under Annexure- 15 shall not be quashed after declaring the same as illegal;

2) The Opp. Parties shall not be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner in the post of Computer Operator / Data Entry Operator within a stipulated period keeping in view his long length of service; If the opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the rule may be made absolute. And pass any other order/orders as would deem fit and proper; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner was engaged as a Computer Operator with consolidated wages w.e.f. 25.06.1998 vide order issued by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation (in short ‘Corporation’) on 26.09.1998 under Annexure-1. Joining of the Petitioner w.e.f. 25.06.1998 was also accepted vide office order available under Annexure-1-Series. Page 2 of 23 // 3 // 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that while so continuing when vide office order dtd.02.12.2004 so issued by the Corporation under Annexure-6, Petitioner’s engagement was treated to have been made as against the post of Junior Computer Consultant w.e.f.

01.12.2004, Petitioner challenging the same approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5798 of 2005. The said Writ Petition was disposed of finally vide order dtd.26.06.2023 inter alia with the following direction so contained in Para-9 and 10 of the order. Para-9 and 10 of the order reads as follows:-“9. On a conspectus of the materials on record and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is persuaded to direct the Corporation and the State authorities to consider the claim of the Petitioner for regularization keeping in view his long service rendered to the Corporation and taking into account the spirit of the judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.777 of 2021 adverted to hereinabove relating to DEOs within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner or his representative. The outcome of such consideration shall be communicated to the Petitioner. 10. In the event the authorities take a decision not to regularize the Petitioner as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator, status quo as on date in respect of the Petitioner's post shall be maintained for a further period of four weeks from the date of communication of such decision to the Petitioner.” Page 3 of 23 // 4 //

4.2. It is contended that after disposal of the Writ Petition vide order under Annexure-13, the Corporation vide its letter dtd.06.10.2023 under Annexure-14 requested to Opposite Party No.2 to accord necessary approval for absorption of the Petitioner against any vacant post so available in CMC. However, such request made by the Corporation was regretted by the Department / Opposite Party No.2 vide the impugned order dtd.02.03.2024 under Annexure-15 inter alia on the ground that, since the very engagement of the Petitioner has been made contrary to the provisions contained under Section-73 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (in short ‘Act’), no such order of approval can be given. 4.3. It is also contended that relevancy and effect of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19951 of 2020 so confirmed in Writ Appeal No.717 of 2021 was held not applicable to the Petitioner’s case. 4.4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order contended that since the Petitioner w.e.f. 25.06.1998 is Page 4 of 23 // 5 //

continuing under the Corporation, the plea taken by Opposite Party No.2 while refusing to accord approval to the request of the Corporation to absorb the Petitioner against any vacant post, is not sustainable in view such long continuance of the Petitioner. Reliance was placed to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99. 4.5. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as follows:- “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles Page 5 of 23 // 6 //

of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment. 24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: Page 6 of 23 // 7 // • Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:

Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:

Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 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 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 Page 7 of 23 // 8 // 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.” 4.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal in Para-14, 15, 17 & 18(IV) has held as follows:-“14. ...... More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.

15. ……. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx 17. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 18.(IV) The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.” 4.7. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jaggo and Shripal, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Page 8 of 23 // 9 // of Dharam Singh, in Paragraph-13, 14, 15 & 17, 18, 19 & 20 has held as follows:

“13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission’s further contention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State’s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.

14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State’s stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy” while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained. 15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State’s refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003,in so far as they concern the Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed. xxx xxx xxx

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 Page 9 of 23 // 10 // 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 an institutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 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:

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. Page 10 of 23 // 11 //

ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.

v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement. 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance .As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, Page 11 of 23 // 12 //

full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 4.8. It is contended that in the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath so cited (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13.5 to 14 of the judgment has held as follows:-“13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and has been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular.

13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. 13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. Page 12 of 23 // 13 //

13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices. 13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason.

13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State’s contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants’ engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution. FINAL CONCLUSION: 14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows: I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization. II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Page 13 of 23 // 14 //

III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny. IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional governance. V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment.” 4.9. It is also contended that at present various vacant posts in Group-C are available in the establishment of the Corporation and Petitioner can very well be absorbed as against one such post, if the request made by the Corporation under Annexure-14 could have been acceded, to by the Department. But on the plea that Petitioners initial engagement is contrary to the provisions contained under Section-73 of the Act request made by the Corporation was regretted vide the impugned order dtd.02.03.2024.

4.10.It is also contended that since at no point of time any objection was made by the Department indicating that the very engagement of the Petitioner is contrary to Page 14 of 23 // 15 // the provisions contained under Section-73 of the Act, such a plea cannot be taken, when the Petitioner has already rendered service for more than 28 years under the Corporation. 4.11. Making all these submissions, learned Senior counsel contended that with quashing of the impugned order dtd.02.03.2024, Opposite Party No.2 be directed to accord necessary permission to the Corporation to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant Group-C post. 5. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. 5.1. It is contended that Petitioner after his engagement as a Computer Operator vide order dtd.26.09.1998 w.e.f. 25.06.1998 under Annexure-1 was disengaged w.e.f. July, 2002. Subsequently, Petitioner was issued with a fresh order of engagement, Page 15 of 23 // 16 // as a Junior Computer consultant w.e.f. 1st December, 2004 vide order dtd.02.12.2004 under Annexure-6.

5.2. It is further contended that challenging such order issued by the Corporation on 02.12.2004 under Annexure-6, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5798 of 2005. Since Petitioner was protected by an interim order so passed on 19.09.2005, Petitioner was allowed to continue. However, basing on the final order passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition in its order dtd.26.06.2023 under Annexure-13, the Corporation when sought the approval of the Department to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant post as the post of Junior Computer consultant is not available in the cadre vide letter dtd.06.10.2023 under Annexure-14, such request of the Corporation was rejected by the Department-Opposite Party No.2 vide the impugned order dtd.02.03.2024 under Annexure-15. 5.3. It is contended that since request made by the Corporation was not accepted by the Government, Page 16 of 23 // 17 // prayer of the Petitioner for his absorption as against any vacant Group-C / Group-D post cannot be made. 6. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 and the instruction provided to this Court.

6.1. It is contended that since Petitioner’s very engagement is contrary to the provisions contained under Section-73 of the Act and the said order of engagement is a voidable one, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order, wherein request made by the Corporation was regretted. 6.2. It is contended that as provided under Section-73 of the Orissa Municipal Act, the Corporation prior to engaging the Petitioner, should have taken prior permission of the Department. Since that was never followed while engaging the Petitioner initially as a Compute Operator and subsequently as Junior Computer Consultant, no order of approval can be Page 17 of 23 // 18 // issued, even on the face of the request made by the Corporation under Annexure-14. Section-73 of the Act more particularly Section-73-D of the Act reads as follows:- “73-D. Irregular appointments to be voidable:- Any appointment made by a Municipality without the previous sanction of the State Government as required by sub-section (1) of Section 73 shall be treated as voidable”. 6.3. It is accordingly contended that since the very engagement of the Petitioner is a voidable one, no such approval can be given to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant sanctioned post under the Corporation. 6.4. It is also contended that as provided under Section-73-D of the Act, no such person has got a vested right of regularization.

6.5. Making all these submissions, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that request of the Corporation so made under Annexure-14 has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order dtd.2.03.2024 under Annexure-15 and it requires no interference. Page 18 of 23 // 19 // 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner to the submission made by the learned State Counsel as well as learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Corporation made further submission basing on the stand taken in the rejoinder affidavit so filed to the counter filed by Opposite Party No.3. Placing reliance an order passed by the Government on 14.03.2015 under Annexure-17, learned Senior Counsel contended that similarly situated persons engaged as DLR/NMR in different urban local bodies of the State including Cuttack Municipal Corporation were regularized vide order of the Government. 7.1. It is accordingly contended that since persons engaged as a DLR / NMR in different urban local bodies of the State were regularized as against the post of Junior Assistant under LFS Cadre vide order dtd.14.08.2015 under Annexure-17, the ground on which request of the Corporation to accord necessary approval to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant Group-C post under the Corporation is not legally sustainable and requires interference of this Court. Page 19 of 23 // 20 //

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and the material available on record, this Court finds that Petitioner was initially engaged as a Computer Operator w.e.f. 25.06.1998 vide order under Annexure-1-Series. While so continuing, Petitioner was disengaged in the month of July, 2002. However, Petitioner was again re-engaged as a Junior Computer Consultant w.e.f. 01.12.2004 vide order dtd.02.12.2004 under Annexure-6. 8.1. Challenging such engagement as a Junior Computer Consultant instead of as a Computer Operator, Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.5798 of 2005. This Court while issuing notice of the matter passed an interim order protecting the interest of the Petitioner. However, the said Writ Petition was ultimately disposed of vide order dtd.26.06.2023 under Annexure-13 inter alia directing the Corporation and the State Authorities to consider the claim of the Petitioner for his regularization keeping in view the long continuance of the Petitioner under the Corporation Page 20 of 23 // 21 // and the judgment passed by this Court in W.A. No.777 of 2021.

8.2. Pursuant to the such order passed by this Court, request was made by the Corporation vide its letter dtd.06.10.2023 under Annexure-14, to Opposite Party No.2, seeking approval to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant post. However, such request of the Corporation was regretted by Opposite Party No.2 vide the impugned order dtd.02.03.2024 under Annexure-15. 8.3. It is found that the impugned order has been passed regretting the request made by the Corporation on the ground that very engagement of the Petitioner is contrary to the provisions contained under Section-73-D of the Act and no such approval can be given to the Corporation to absorb the Petitioner. 8.4. This Court considering the provisions contained under Section-73-D of the Act is of the view that the said provision is not a complete bar, prohibiting the corporation to make any such engagement. Since it is Page 21 of 23 // 22 // not disputed that Petitioner is continuing w.e.f. 25.09.1998 with break of around two years in between till date, this Court is of the view that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization. 8.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis and placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam Singh & Bhola Nath, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is eligible for his absorption as against any vacant Group-C/Group-D post under the Corporation.

8.6. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-15 refusing to accord approval to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant post is legal and justified. 8.7. Therefore, this Court while quashing order dtd.02.03.2024 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-15, directs Opposite Party No.2 to accord necessary approval, permitting the Corporation to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant Group-C Page 22 of 23 // 23 // / Group-D post. This Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to issue necessary order of approval within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such approval, the Corporation shall do well to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant Group-C / Group-D post by passing an appropriate order, in that regard within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of such approval. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 30th June, 2026/Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 11:02:16 Page 23 of 23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7686 of 2024 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Sushil Kumar Rout …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. A. Das, Sr. Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv. for O.P.3 PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Hearing:30.06.2026 and Date of Judgment:30.06.2026 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 2. Pursuant to the order dtd.13.05.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by the Department with service of copy on the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as // 2 // well as learned Senior Counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.3 in Court. The same be kept in record. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why: 1) The order of rejection dtd. 02.03.2024 issued by OP No. 2 under Annexure- 15 shall not be quashed after declaring the same as illegal;

2) The Opp. Parties shall not be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner in the post of Computer Operator / Data Entry Operator within a stipulated period keeping in view his long length of service; If the opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the rule may be made absolute. And pass any other order/orders as would deem fit and proper; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner was engaged as a Computer Operator with consolidated wages w.e.f. 25.06.1998 vide order issued by the Cuttack Municipal Corporation (in short ‘Corporation’) on 26.09.1998 under Annexure-1. Joining of the Petitioner w.e.f. 25.06.1998 was also accepted vide office order available under Annexure-1-Series. Page 2 of 23 // 3 // 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that while so continuing when vide office order dtd.02.12.2004 so issued by the Corporation under Annexure-6, Petitioner’s engagement was treated to have been made as against the post of Junior Computer Consultant w.e.f.

01.12.2004, Petitioner challenging the same approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5798 of 2005. The said Writ Petition was disposed of finally vide order dtd.26.06.2023 inter alia with the following direction so contained in Para-9 and 10 of the order. Para-9 and 10 of the order reads as follows:-“9. On a conspectus of the materials on record and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is persuaded to direct the Corporation and the State authorities to consider the claim of the Petitioner for regularization keeping in view his long service rendered to the Corporation and taking into account the spirit of the judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.777 of 2021 adverted to hereinabove relating to DEOs within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner or his representative. The outcome of such consideration shall be communicated to the Petitioner. 10. In the event the authorities take a decision not to regularize the Petitioner as Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator, status quo as on date in respect of the Petitioner's post shall be maintained for a further period of four weeks from the date of communication of such decision to the Petitioner.” Page 3 of 23 // 4 //

4.2. It is contended that after disposal of the Writ Petition vide order under Annexure-13, the Corporation vide its letter dtd.06.10.2023 under Annexure-14 requested to Opposite Party No.2 to accord necessary approval for absorption of the Petitioner against any vacant post so available in CMC. However, such request made by the Corporation was regretted by the Department / Opposite Party No.2 vide the impugned order dtd.02.03.2024 under Annexure-15 inter alia on the ground that, since the very engagement of the Petitioner has been made contrary to the provisions contained under Section-73 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (in short ‘Act’), no such order of approval can be given. 4.3. It is also contended that relevancy and effect of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19951 of 2020 so confirmed in Writ Appeal No.717 of 2021 was held not applicable to the Petitioner’s case. 4.4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order contended that since the Petitioner w.e.f. 25.06.1998 is Page 4 of 23 // 5 //

continuing under the Corporation, the plea taken by Opposite Party No.2 while refusing to accord approval to the request of the Corporation to absorb the Petitioner against any vacant post, is not sustainable in view such long continuance of the Petitioner. Reliance was placed to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, as well as Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No(s).8558 of 2018 and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2026 INSC 99. 4.5. View expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo in Para-22 to 25 and 27 reads as follows:- “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles Page 5 of 23 // 6 //

of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages companies to provide stable employment and to observe obligations concerning employment stability and social security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a leading role in promoting employment security, particularly in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate long-term unemployment. 24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair treatment. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: Page 6 of 23 // 7 // • Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:

Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:

Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 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 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 Page 7 of 23 // 8 // 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.” 4.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal in Para-14, 15, 17 & 18(IV) has held as follows:-“14. ...... More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.

15. ……. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx 17. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de facto regular roles for an extended period. 18.(IV) The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.” 4.7. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jaggo and Shripal, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Page 8 of 23 // 9 // of Dharam Singh, in Paragraph-13, 14, 15 & 17, 18, 19 & 20 has held as follows:

“13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission’s further contention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State’s refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.

14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State’s stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003, rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about “rules” and “vacancy” while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State’s refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained. 15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State’s refusals dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003,in so far as they concern the Commission’s proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed. xxx xxx xxx

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 Page 9 of 23 // 10 // 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 an institutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. 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:

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. Page 10 of 23 // 11 //

ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.

v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement. 20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling “reconsiderations,” and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance .As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, Page 11 of 23 // 12 //

full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 4.8. It is contended that in the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath so cited (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13.5 to 14 of the judgment has held as follows:-“13.5. Such a decision must necessarily be a conscious and reasoned one. An employee who has satisfactorily discharged his duties over several years and has been granted repeated extensions cannot, overnight, be treated as surplus or undesirable. We are unable to accept the justification advanced by the respondents as the obligation of the State, as a model employer, extends to fair treatment of its employees irrespective of whether their engagement is contractual or regular.

13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union of India, this Court underscored that government departments must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment, and evolved the test of examining whether the duties performed by such temporary employees are integral to the day-to-day functioning of the organization. 13.7. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra) cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative engagements continued for years without undertaking regular recruitment. The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. Page 12 of 23 // 13 //

13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this Court strongly deprecated the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular employment obligations, observing that such measures perpetuate precarious working conditions while circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices. 13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by fairness and reason.

13.10. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the respondent-State’s contention that the mere contractual nomenclature of the appellants’ engagement denudes them of constitutional protection. The State, having availed of the appellants’ services on sanctioned posts for over a decade pursuant to a due process of selection and having consistently acknowledged their satisfactory performance, cannot, in the absence of cogent reasons or a speaking decision, abruptly discontinue such engagement by taking refuge behind formal contractual clauses. Such action is manifestly arbitrary, inconsistent with the obligation of the State to act as a model employer, and fails to withstand scrutiny under Article 14 of the Constitution. FINAL CONCLUSION: 14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows: I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization. II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Page 13 of 23 // 14 //

III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny. IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or to discard long-serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional governance. V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment.” 4.9. It is also contended that at present various vacant posts in Group-C are available in the establishment of the Corporation and Petitioner can very well be absorbed as against one such post, if the request made by the Corporation under Annexure-14 could have been acceded, to by the Department. But on the plea that Petitioners initial engagement is contrary to the provisions contained under Section-73 of the Act request made by the Corporation was regretted vide the impugned order dtd.02.03.2024.

4.10.It is also contended that since at no point of time any objection was made by the Department indicating that the very engagement of the Petitioner is contrary to Page 14 of 23 // 15 // the provisions contained under Section-73 of the Act, such a plea cannot be taken, when the Petitioner has already rendered service for more than 28 years under the Corporation. 4.11. Making all these submissions, learned Senior counsel contended that with quashing of the impugned order dtd.02.03.2024, Opposite Party No.2 be directed to accord necessary permission to the Corporation to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant Group-C post. 5. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. 5.1. It is contended that Petitioner after his engagement as a Computer Operator vide order dtd.26.09.1998 w.e.f. 25.06.1998 under Annexure-1 was disengaged w.e.f. July, 2002. Subsequently, Petitioner was issued with a fresh order of engagement, Page 15 of 23 // 16 // as a Junior Computer consultant w.e.f. 1st December, 2004 vide order dtd.02.12.2004 under Annexure-6.

5.2. It is further contended that challenging such order issued by the Corporation on 02.12.2004 under Annexure-6, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5798 of 2005. Since Petitioner was protected by an interim order so passed on 19.09.2005, Petitioner was allowed to continue. However, basing on the final order passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition in its order dtd.26.06.2023 under Annexure-13, the Corporation when sought the approval of the Department to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant post as the post of Junior Computer consultant is not available in the cadre vide letter dtd.06.10.2023 under Annexure-14, such request of the Corporation was rejected by the Department-Opposite Party No.2 vide the impugned order dtd.02.03.2024 under Annexure-15. 5.3. It is contended that since request made by the Corporation was not accepted by the Government, Page 16 of 23 // 17 // prayer of the Petitioner for his absorption as against any vacant Group-C / Group-D post cannot be made. 6. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 and the instruction provided to this Court.

6.1. It is contended that since Petitioner’s very engagement is contrary to the provisions contained under Section-73 of the Act and the said order of engagement is a voidable one, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order, wherein request made by the Corporation was regretted. 6.2. It is contended that as provided under Section-73 of the Orissa Municipal Act, the Corporation prior to engaging the Petitioner, should have taken prior permission of the Department. Since that was never followed while engaging the Petitioner initially as a Compute Operator and subsequently as Junior Computer Consultant, no order of approval can be Page 17 of 23 // 18 // issued, even on the face of the request made by the Corporation under Annexure-14. Section-73 of the Act more particularly Section-73-D of the Act reads as follows:- “73-D. Irregular appointments to be voidable:- Any appointment made by a Municipality without the previous sanction of the State Government as required by sub-section (1) of Section 73 shall be treated as voidable”. 6.3. It is accordingly contended that since the very engagement of the Petitioner is a voidable one, no such approval can be given to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant sanctioned post under the Corporation. 6.4. It is also contended that as provided under Section-73-D of the Act, no such person has got a vested right of regularization.

6.5. Making all these submissions, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that request of the Corporation so made under Annexure-14 has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order dtd.2.03.2024 under Annexure-15 and it requires no interference. Page 18 of 23 // 19 // 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner to the submission made by the learned State Counsel as well as learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Corporation made further submission basing on the stand taken in the rejoinder affidavit so filed to the counter filed by Opposite Party No.3. Placing reliance an order passed by the Government on 14.03.2015 under Annexure-17, learned Senior Counsel contended that similarly situated persons engaged as DLR/NMR in different urban local bodies of the State including Cuttack Municipal Corporation were regularized vide order of the Government. 7.1. It is accordingly contended that since persons engaged as a DLR / NMR in different urban local bodies of the State were regularized as against the post of Junior Assistant under LFS Cadre vide order dtd.14.08.2015 under Annexure-17, the ground on which request of the Corporation to accord necessary approval to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant Group-C post under the Corporation is not legally sustainable and requires interference of this Court. Page 19 of 23 // 20 //

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and the material available on record, this Court finds that Petitioner was initially engaged as a Computer Operator w.e.f. 25.06.1998 vide order under Annexure-1-Series. While so continuing, Petitioner was disengaged in the month of July, 2002. However, Petitioner was again re-engaged as a Junior Computer Consultant w.e.f. 01.12.2004 vide order dtd.02.12.2004 under Annexure-6. 8.1. Challenging such engagement as a Junior Computer Consultant instead of as a Computer Operator, Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.5798 of 2005. This Court while issuing notice of the matter passed an interim order protecting the interest of the Petitioner. However, the said Writ Petition was ultimately disposed of vide order dtd.26.06.2023 under Annexure-13 inter alia directing the Corporation and the State Authorities to consider the claim of the Petitioner for his regularization keeping in view the long continuance of the Petitioner under the Corporation Page 20 of 23 // 21 // and the judgment passed by this Court in W.A. No.777 of 2021.

8.2. Pursuant to the such order passed by this Court, request was made by the Corporation vide its letter dtd.06.10.2023 under Annexure-14, to Opposite Party No.2, seeking approval to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant post. However, such request of the Corporation was regretted by Opposite Party No.2 vide the impugned order dtd.02.03.2024 under Annexure-15. 8.3. It is found that the impugned order has been passed regretting the request made by the Corporation on the ground that very engagement of the Petitioner is contrary to the provisions contained under Section-73-D of the Act and no such approval can be given to the Corporation to absorb the Petitioner. 8.4. This Court considering the provisions contained under Section-73-D of the Act is of the view that the said provision is not a complete bar, prohibiting the corporation to make any such engagement. Since it is Page 21 of 23 // 22 // not disputed that Petitioner is continuing w.e.f. 25.09.1998 with break of around two years in between till date, this Court is of the view that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regularization. 8.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis and placing reliance on the decision in the case of Jaggo, Shripal, Dharam Singh & Bhola Nath, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is eligible for his absorption as against any vacant Group-C/Group-D post under the Corporation.

8.6. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-15 refusing to accord approval to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant post is legal and justified. 8.7. Therefore, this Court while quashing order dtd.02.03.2024 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-15, directs Opposite Party No.2 to accord necessary approval, permitting the Corporation to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant Group-C Page 22 of 23 // 23 // / Group-D post. This Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to issue necessary order of approval within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such approval, the Corporation shall do well to absorb the Petitioner as against any vacant Group-C / Group-D post by passing an appropriate order, in that regard within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of such approval. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 30th June, 2026/Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 06-Jul-2026 11:02:16 Page 23 of 23