p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 2814 of 2024 State of Odisha and Another …. Appellants Mr. S. B. Panda, AGA -versus- Sunirmal Mukherjee and Others …. Respondents Mr. M. Basu, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER Order No. 18.02.2026 06. The government and its functionaries have preferred this Intra-Court Appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.09.2023 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.19169 of 2012 & 28001 of 2019 wherein the learned Single Judge having favoured the Writ Petition of the Opposite Party-Petitioner recorded the finds as follows: “10. Perusal of the impugned order, enclosed as Annexure-8 reveals that the same was issued by the Government purportedly as per Finance Department Resolution No. 31715/F dated 04.09.2012 and No. 17815/F dated 30.05.2018. In view of what has been discussed above and observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar (supra), this is nothing but an employment given on exploitative terms, particularly when it is not the case of the authorities that the petitioner’s entry into the Service was illegal. This Court therefore, holds that the petitioner has made out a good case for interference by this Court. 11. In the result, both the writ applications are allowed. The opposite parties are directed to issue necessary orders to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date of sanction of the post by the Government i.e. 17.08.2005 with all consequential service and financial benefits from the said date after adjusting the amount already received by him towards p. 2 consolidated remuneration and as a temporary status conferred employee. Since the petitioner has already superannuated from service, the above exercise should be completed within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Panda, learned AGA vehemently argues that the impugned order deserves to be set aside since the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and misdirected itself in directing regularisation of the services of the Opposite Party with all consequential benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent refuted the contentions of the learned counsel for the Appellants. 4. Having heard both the parties and upon perusal of the appeal papers, we broadly accept the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, who, having relied upon the decision in Sheo Narain Nagar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2018) 13 SCC 432, found the action of the authority to be not in accordance with law. While broadly accepting the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge, we also add that the ground propounded by the Appellants in assailing the impugned order fails as insignificant, for the Appellants misconstrued the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umadevi (supra). In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Jaggo vs. Union of India, 2024 INSC 1034, has held as follows: “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' p. 3 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 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. ……… 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: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled 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 p. 4 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. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.” In the above circumstances, the present Writ Appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and accordingly p. 5 it is, costs having been made easy. The order of the learned Single Judge to be implemented within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks and compliance report to be filed before the Registrar General of this Court within one (1) week next following, failing which the erring officials run the risk of contempt action. Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan Designation: Senior Stenographer