In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has directed the Government of Odisha to grant retrospective regularisation to 104 employees from 1994.
The court observed that denying them permanent status for decades was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice.
The judgment highlights the importance of fairness, dignity, and accountability in administrative decisions affecting workers.
Case Origin Dates Back to Early 1990s
The matter dates back to 1992–93, when over 100 individuals were engaged as casual workers through a formal selection process. In early 1994, multiple orders were issued to regularise their services.
However, the process was abruptly halted in April 1994 by the Director of Printing, Stationery & Publication, triggering a prolonged legal battle that continued for over three decades.
Division Bench Sets Aside Previous Orders
A Division Bench comprising Krishna Shripad Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash struck down both the 1994 abeyance order and a subsequent ruling of the State Administrative Tribunal.
The court termed these decisions legally untenable and criticised the administrative approach, stating that governance must reflect compassion and fairness.
Relief for Employees and Families
Taking note of the prolonged delay, the court observed:
- 57 employees have already retired
- 21 employees have passed away
- 26 employees are still in service
The court directed the state to extend full service and financial benefits retrospectively from 1994. This includes pensionary benefits for retirees and compensation for the families of deceased employees.
Authorities have been given a three-month deadline to implement the order.
Penalty Clause for Non-Compliance
The court imposed a cost of ₹5,000 per petitioner, which will be waived if the government complies within the stipulated time. Any delay will attract interest, recoverable from responsible officials.
This directive underscores judicial intent to ensure timely implementation of the ruling.
Court Highlights Legal Errors by Tribunal
The Bench noted that the issue had effectively been resolved in 1994 itself when the abeyance order was kept in abeyance, restoring the employees’ status. However, the State Administrative Tribunal failed to close the matter and continued proceedings, which the court termed a clear legal error.
Rejecting the State’s claim that the appointments were irregular, the court emphasised that the workers were duly selected and had served continuously, proving the necessity of their roles.
