The Orissa High Court reaffirms the Uma Devi (3) exception, directing fresh consideration of a 24-year Assistant Revenue Inspector’s regularization under Articles 226/227 — binding subordinate authorities in distinguishing irregular from illegal public employment.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/15128/2022 of SUDHANSU SEKHAR DASH Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010389582022 |
| Date of Registration | 21-06-2022 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Questions of Law | Whether a temporary/ad hoc appointee serving continuously against a sanctioned post for over ten years is entitled to regularization under the exception in paragraph 53 of Uma Devi (3)? |
| Ratio Decidendi | Continuous service in a sanctioned vacancy on temporary/ad hoc terms, with full pay and allowances, transforms an appointment from merely irregular (not illegal) into one meriting consideration for regularization under the Uma Devi (3) exception. A break of one day or procedural infirmity does not defeat entitlement where no interim court or tribunal order protected the appointee. Upon more than ten years of uninterrupted service, the authority must apply settled Supreme Court principles and government guidelines to decide regularization on merits. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner joined in 1997 as a Collection Moharir (later re-designated ARI) on a sanctioned vacancy, was paid full pay scales and allowances, undertook higher responsibilities, and continued without interim protection. After completing over 24 years, his representation for regularization was rejected for not completing ten years by 2006, leading to this writ. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that temporary/ad hoc appointees in sanctioned vacancies, paid full scales and allowances, qualify as irregular (not illegal) and fall under the paragraph 53 exception of Uma Devi (3).
- Emphasizes that a single-day break or lack of competitive recruitment does not bar regularization where uninterrupted service exceeds ten years without interim orders.
- Affirms that payment of revised pay scales and dearness allowance indicates substantive employment merits reclassification.
- Authorities must apply Supreme Court precedents and government policy guidelines (GAD letter dated 03 March 2021) to decide regularization petitions within a fixed timeframe.
- Advocates can rely on this decision to challenge arbitrary rejections of long-serving temporary employees.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner’s uninterrupted service since 07 February 1997 on a sanctioned post, with fixation of pay under successive Odisha Revised Scales of Pay Rules and allowances, demonstrated substantive duty performance beyond temporary status.
- The court distinguished between illegal and irregular appointments, holding the petitioner’s case as irregular under paragraph 53 of Uma Devi (3).
- Reliance on Supreme Court and High Court precedents (Uma Devi (3), M.L. Kesari, Narendra Kumar Tiwari, Amarkant Rai, Jaggo) reinforced that appointees with over ten years’ continuous service merit one-time regularization.
- Procedural irregularities—whether non-competitive selection or a break of one day—are curable and do not defeat substantive employment rights.
- The impugned order rejecting regularization was set aside; the Collector was directed to decide the petitioner’s representation afresh within eight weeks, applying the settled jurisprudence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Served continuously since 1997 as Assistant Revenue Inspector against a sanctioned vacancy.
- Has full pay scale, dearness allowance, and allowances reflective of a regular appointment.
- No interim court or tribunal protection until after ten years; qualifies under Uma Devi (3) exception.
- Rejection of regularization is arbitrary, contrary to binding Supreme Court precedents.
Opposite Parties
- Petitioner had not completed ten years of service by 10 April 2006 (date of Uma Devi (3) judgment).
- Regularization guidelines require six to ten years’ service; petitioner did not meet cut-off.
- Authority acted per Court direction in W.P.(C) No. 37519/2021; no vacancy for absorption.
- Initial appointment was irregular; competitive recruitment process not followed.
Factual Background
Sudhansu Sekhar Dash was appointed temporarily as Collection Moharir (later re-designated Assistant Revenue Inspector) against a sanctioned post in February 1997. His service book records 17 March 1998 as the entry date; he received full pay scales and allowances, acted as Revenue Inspector when required, and served uninterrupted for over 24 years. After completing more than ten years without any interim order protecting his service, he applied for regularization under the State’s 03 March 2021 policy. The Collector rejected his representation on 21 April 2022, citing non-fulfillment of the ten-year requirement, leading to this writ under Articles 226/227.
Statutory Analysis
- Jurisdiction invoked under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for writ of mandamus.
- Application of paragraph 53 of Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1, distinguishing irregular versus illegal appointments.
- Consideration of State’s General Administration Department letter dated 03 March 2021 laying out procedural checklist for regularizing contractual employees.
- Reference to internal policy (GAD Resolution No. 261085/Gen., 17 September 2013) on years-of-service thresholds for regularization.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- W.P.(C) No. 15128/2022, Orissa High Court (Cuttack), judgment dated 18 August 2025.