IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22398 of 2019 Hirachand Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. N. Biswal, Advocate -Versus- SState of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Ms. Babita Kumari Sahu, AGA W.P.(C) No.22400 of 2019 Asutosh Rath …. Petitioner Mr. N. Biswal, Advocate -Versus- SState of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Ms. Babita Kumari Sahu, AGA And W.P.(C) No.22401 of 2019 Anil Kumar Rath …. Petitioner Mr. N. Biswal, Advocate -Versus- SState of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Ms. Babita Kumari Sahu, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING:19.02.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:29.05.2026 1. All the writ petitions have been clubbed together and disposed of by the following common judgment. 2. The petitioners have filed the writ petitions directing opposite party No.2 to regularize their services in the posts of Pharmacist and to declare the period between 2014 and 2018 as continuation in service and to grant all such service benefits as are admissible to them, thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 29th July, 2019 as at Annexure-4 on the grounds stated therein. 3. The facts of each case are not described separately for the sake of brevity. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners as science graduates and diploma holders in Pharmacy joined as Pharmacists at their respective places of posting on ad hoc basis after being duly selected in an interview vide Annexure-5. It is pleaded on record that the petitioners were allowed to continue service on ad hoc from time to time by the orders of opposite party No.2 and in the meantime, rendered 15 years of service in different Sub-Jails within the State and such continuation is ever since 1999 till October, 2014. It is further pleaded that the services of the petitioners were discontinued on and from 2014 after commencement of the Odisha Group-‘C’ and Group-‘D’ (Contractual Appointment) Rules, 2013. The claim of the petitioners is that after the Rules came into force, the services should have been regularized in terms thereof, but it was followed by a decision to discontinue their engagement. 3.1. Since the petitioners continued rendering their services for more than 15 years having all the requisite qualification and found eligible to regularization approached the State Administrative Tribunal in OA Nos.2539(C), 2540(C) & 2547(C) of 2015. It is pleaded that the OAs were disposed of with a direction to go for regularization taking judicial notice of the decisions of the Apex Court, such as, Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vrs. Umadevi (3) and others AIR (2006) SC 1806; State of Karnataka & others Vrs. M.L. Kesari and others AIR 2010 SC 2587 besides other case laws including Amarkant Rai Vrs. State of Bihar and others (2015) 8 SCC 265. The further pleading is that the OAs were disposed of by a common order dated 19th January, 2017 vide Annexure-1 directing opposite party No.1 to regularize the services of the petitioners as against the vacancies to be filled up in view of their possessing qualification and for having more than 15 years of experience. Against the above order, the State filed W.P.(C) Nos.3033, 3034 & 3099 of 2018 and disposed of on 16th August, 2018 dismissing the same thereby upholding the decision in the OAs extending the stipulated time to comply the directions issued therein and to complete the exercise by the end of October, 2018. 3.2. Finally, it is pleaded that pursuant to the above, the petitioners were appointed on a regular basis but with effect from 15th November, 2018 as against the posts held by them in the Scale of Pay Level-7 of the Pay Matrix of the ORSP Rules, 2017. According to the petitioners, the regularization having been allowed but not retrospectively, the petitioners approached the Government with representations demanding it from the date of initial appointments on ad hoc basis however they were disposed of and rejected by separate orders dated 29th July, 2019 i.e. Annexure-4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the representations, the instant writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking regularization with retrospective effect and to keep them above others joined in 2007 in the gradation list of Pharmacist as at Annexure-8. 4. Gone through the pleadings on record. 5. According to the State, with the filing of counter affidavit through opposite party Nos.1 to 3, the petitioners are not entitled to retrospective regularization being ad hoc employees and for the fact that the rules referring to which regular appointment is demanded is not applicable to them. It is pleaded that the petitioners were appointed as Pharmacists on ad hoc basis for a period of 44 days with usual DA and other allowances sanctioned by the Government from time to time and allowed to continue as such till 2014 when the Rules came into force and prohibited such appointments and therefore, it was followed by their disengagement. Pursuant to the order in the OAs and dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the State, the services of the petitioners have been regularized with effect from the date of their joining in the posts and therefore, no regular appointments can be made with retrospective effect. It is pleaded therein that the Rules and in particular, Rule 10 thereof provides conditions of service on regular appointment and according to it, a contractual employee, who has completed six years of service, shall be deemed to have been regularly appointed on such completion, but there is no any such provision therein for regularization of service of an ad hoc employee. The further contention is that the rules prohibit ad hoc appointments and Rule 9(4) thereof relates to the contractual employees with a stipulation therein that they shall not be entitled to D.A., H.R.A., R.C.M. and other allowances during the period of such contractual appointment and in so far as the petitioners are concerned, they have been regularized prospectively and as such, no illegality has been committed and therefore, the demand for retrospective regularization and seniority is impermissible. 6. Rejoinder affidavits are filed by the petitioners pleading therein that the fact that the appointment has been ad hoc ever since the date of joining and the direction in the OAs are to the effect that their services are to be regularized considering the fact that it has been so since 1999. It is further pleaded that the petitioners were allowed to continue after their appointment vide Annexure-5 in the revised scale of pay attached to the post and considering the continuation in service for a considerable period, the regularization was directed while disposing of the OAs and therefore, any such decision to consider them as fresh appointees treating the date of their regularization from 26th November, 2018 and not from initial dates of appointment with placements below the other contractual employees is arbitrary, illegal ignoring the fact that the initial appointment though on an ad hoc basis is from 12th February, 1999, whereas, other appointees who are above them in the gradation list joined in the year 2007 and in view of the decisions in Umadevi (3), M.L. Kesari and Amarkant Rai (supra), the regularization shall have to be ensured with effect from 12th February, 1999. 7. Heard Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for the State. 8. No doubt, the initial appointments of the petitioners are on ad hoc basis. The service of the petitioners continued till 2014, whereafter they were disengaged as earlier stated. The question is whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization from the initial dates of appointment and not prospectively? While disposing of the OAs, the decisions in Umadevi (3), M.L. Kesari and other case laws besides Amarkant Rai (supra) have been taken cognizance of directing opposite party No.2 to regularize the services of the petitioners by filling up the vacancies regard being had to their 15 years of experience and having possessed the requisite qualification. Since the petitioners were allowed to continue on ad hoc basis for so long, such was the direction in the OAs for regularization of their services and it has not been interfered with by this Court while disposing of the writ petitions filed by the State. The regularization of the petitioners has taken place subsequent thereto, but it has been made prospectively. The regular appointment has been made pursuant to Annexure-3 with effect from 15th November, 2018, which is the bone of contention, since the petitioners demand it retrospectively from the dates of initial appointments. 9. According to Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioners, the decision denying retrospective regular appointment vide Annexure-4 cannot be sustained for the reason that there has been continuation in service for nearly 15 years. The contention is that when the services of the petitioners have been regularized, opposite party No.1 could not have ignored the period of service rendered on ad hoc basis and therefore, the regularization ought to have been with retrospective effect, but instead it has been denied vide Annexure-4. Referring to the case laws cited and in particular, Amarkant Rai (supra), it is contended by Mr. Biswal, learned counsel that the petitioners though possess qualification and years of experience still were disengaged in 2014, which is per se illegal. 10. On the contrary, Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for the State would submit that an ad hoc appointee cannot claim regularization from the date of initial appointment and in so far as the Rules in place, it is not applicable to the petitioners as the same related to contractual employees. It is further contended that the settled principle of service jurisprudence is that regularization operates prospectively and cannot be retrospective unless specifically directed by a Court. According to Ms. Sahu, learned AGA, no such direction was issued in the OAs nor by this Court and therefore, the order of regularization in respect of the petitioners shall have to be given effect to from the date of regular appointments and any such claim for retrospective seniority, financial benefits or continuity from 1999 or 2014 would be contrary to the settled law and cited a decision in Union of India and others Vrs. A.S. Pillai and others (2010) 13 SCC 448. 10.1. Further claiming that the period between 2014 and 2018 cannot be treated as duty as they were not in service for such period and therefore, in absence of actual service being rendered, the question of counting the said period as on duty or continuity does not arise specifically in absence of any direction preserving the continuation of service during the interregnum. It is also contended that there was no vested or enforceable right existed in favour of the petitioners during the aforesaid period and that apart, in view of the decision in State of Rajasthan and others Vrs. Daya Lal and others (2011) 2 SCC 429, regularization cannot be considered contrary to the recruitment process and in case, the petitioners’ regularization is allowed retrospectively either from 1999 or 2014, the same is to disturb the existing seniority as in Annexure-8 and to adversely affect the rights of others, who are placed above them who have not been impleaded nor afforded with any opportunity of hearing and therefore, the seniority should not be altered by any such exercise in violation of principles of natural justice. 11. Regularization from the date of initial appointment for ad hoc employees is generally not allowed and it has been a consistent rule that ad hoc regularization is strictly prospective. In other words, regularization with retrospective effect cannot be granted from the date of ad hoc appointment unless such appointment strictly complied the recruitment rules. The absorption is generally permitted from the date of formal order of regularization and not from the initial engagement on an ad hoc basis. 12. Law has evolved over a period of time and it has been held that any such appointment either on daily wage or ad hoc basis is not to be questioned while considering retrospective regularization even when the engagement is not by an open recruitment process but by selection, which is not by a back door entry, only to be treated as irregular. In the case at hand, the petitioners joined as Pharmacists on ad hoc basis, hence, by no means, it is to be alleged that their appointment is illegal. Rather, the petitioners received appointments after interviews were held, hence, are not to be branded as illegal and therefore, according to the Court, such period of service is to be counted for the purpose of regularization with retrospective effect. 13. In view of the decisions of the Apex Court in Amarkant Rai, M.L. Kesari (supra) and Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and others (2024) 12 SCR 1235, the Court is further inclined to hold that the past years of services rendered by the petitioners should have weighed in the mind of opposite party No.1 to consider their regularization from an anterior date. This Court is aware of the fact that ad hoc appointment bypassed regular recruitment process but considering the case laws cited above, retrospective regularization shall have to be considered. Having regard to the fact that regularization has been demanded for having served continuously for more than 15 years, in the humble view of this Court, it should be taken into account for seniority since it dates back to the date of initial appointment. Having said that and considering the decision of the Apex Court in Amarkant Rai (supra), wherein, regularization has been directed retrospectively and the fact that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioners bore a blemished record during their employment for 15 years, the regularization demanded by them deserves to be allowed. 14. But for the break period between 2014 and 2018, which normally leads to forfeiture of past service and is not counted towards qualifying service, the Court is inclined to hold that the same should be condoned or regularized by a special administrative order as dies non or leave so that it may be included, otherwise, that would sever the continuity of service for no fault of the petitioners. According to the Court, such condonation is feasible since the break was preceded by ad hoc service for nearly 15 years; when the initial appointment is not treated as illegal; and that it could not be attributed to the petitioners. 15. Accordingly, it is ordered. 16. In the result, the writ petitions stand allowed. As a logical sequitur, the impugned orders dated 29th July, 2019 as at Annexure-4 are hereby set aside, thereby directing opposite party No.1 to act upon and pass appropriate orders in terms of the directions issued herein above at the earliest, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Tudu