The Orissa High Court on Thursday ordered the regularisation of a 60-year-old daily wage employee who worked with the Cuttack Municipal Corporation for over three decades, asserting that the state is “not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer” that cannot exploit long-term workers under temporary labels.
A division bench of chief justice Harish Tandon and justice Murahari Sri Raman directed that Radha Krishna Dash, who joined as a junior assistant on daily wages in November 1990, be regularised with retrospective effect from 1999 with all consequential benefits including pension.
The court termed sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity as “a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision” affecting those who keep public offices running.
“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,” the bench observed while upholding a single judge’s decision.
Dash retired without pensionary benefits despite working continuously for 30 years. His troubles began when the corporation failed to sponsor his name during a 1997 selection process for regularising similarly situated employees. Between 1982 and 1992, 148 in-service candidates were selected and regularised, with their seniority counted from their initial engagement dates. Even juniors who joined after Dash were regularised and granted pensionary benefits.
{{/usCountry}}Dash retired without pensionary benefits despite working continuously for 30 years. His troubles began when the corporation failed to sponsor his name during a 1997 selection process for regularising similarly situated employees. Between 1982 and 1992, 148 in-service candidates were selected and regularised, with their seniority counted from their initial engagement dates. Even juniors who joined after Dash were regularised and granted pensionary benefits.
{{/usCountry}}Also Read: Commuters hit as roadways, PRTC contractual staff strike
When he was finally absorbed as a regular Junior Assistant in August 2015, following earlier court directions, the effective date was set as August 14, 2015—not from his initial engagement date as granted to his counterparts.
The state government’s sole ground for denial was that the corporation had failed to sponsor Dash’s name to a Selection Board in 1997. The court rejected this reasoning, noting that the corporation itself later admitted this omission through a 2017 resolution and formally recommended his regularisation in 2018.
“For the fault of the authority concerned, an employee should not be put to jeopardy,” Justice Sri Raman stated, directing compliance within one month, failing which a penalty of ₹5,000 per day would be recovered from the salary of the authority concerned.
The court said it would be “unjust for the State to disregard the employee’s enduring plight, particularly given the inordinate delays that contributed to his prolonged uncertainty and hindered his rightful progression.”
Emphasising that continued employment for several years creates certain rights, the bench said: “Continued employment for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continuous service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable.”
The court observed that 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.”
Referring to recent Supreme Court decisions, the court questioned, “If the Courts cannot give direction for their regularisation of service, in the constrained legal scenario what other remedies are available to these unfortunate employees, who have been engaged in service for public purpose, without having any definite future to hold on?”
The bench also laid down broader principles for the state, stating that departments must maintain accurate establishment registers and muster rolls, and explain why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where 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,” the court said, adding that “ad-hocism thrives where administration is opaque.”