Abolition of Occupied Sanctioned Post Without Assessing Necessity is an Arrogation of Power: Orissa High Court Rebukes Government’s Arbitrary Action

“Twenty-Two Years of Continuous Service Cannot Be Erased as Redundancy — Regularise, Don’t Exploit”: Orissa High Court, while deciding Writ, declared as arbitrary and unconstitutional the decision of the government to abolish a sanctioned Group-D post held by the appellant for over 22 years. The judgment set aside both the disengagement order and the earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge, describing them as perverse, unreasoned, and contrary to constitutional mandates of fairness and equity.

The Court held that the appellant's long ad hoc engagement since 1997 against a sanctioned post, with scale pay, grade pay and DA, could not be dismissed by mere administrative fiat.

“This is a case of wrongful denial of employment and regularisation… for no fault of the appellant,” observed Justice Murahari Sri Raman, who authored the judgment for the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon.

“Abolition of Post Smacks of Non-Application of Mind — Immediate Next-Day Request for Re-engagement Exposes Administrative Contradiction”

The facts before the Court painted a stark picture of institutional inconsistency and unfair labour practices. The appellant, engaged since 1997 as a Process Server on 44-day rolling ad hoc contracts, was disengaged in December 2019 when the post was abolished based on an Office Memorandum. This, despite multiple letters from the RTO, Chandikhole, asserting that the post was essential and recommending the appellant’s absorption against the sanctioned vacancy.

The High Court found the abolition order of 20.12.2019 to be indefensible. The same authority — the RTO — wrote the next day that his office was running with severe staff shortages and urgently requested to engage a Process Server on daily wages.

“When the very office that abolished the post sought permission the next day to engage the same post, it illustrates the sheer non-application of mind. It was not just unwise governance but a constitutional wrong,” the Court remarked.

The Bench described the action as one taken “without reference to factual necessity or administrative reality.”

“Engagement Was Not Illegal — It Was Continuous, Sanctioned and Functional: Regularisation Not Charity, but a Right”

Rejecting the premise of illegality or backdoor entry, the Court held: “The appellant has served the Office of RTO for more than two decades against a sanctioned post. This is not a case of irregular entry or contractual illegality. He was recommended for absorption years ago and fulfilled eligibility.”

Drawing support from a long line of precedents — including Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, M.L. Kesari (2010) 9 SCC 247, and Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826) — the Court emphasized the constitutional obligation of the State to avoid exploitative employment practices:

“When public employment continues for decades against sanctioned posts, treating employees as disposable is not just unjust, it is exploitative.”

The Court quoted with approval from Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand: “This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head.”

It ruled that the appellant’s appointment was neither casual nor redundant, and fell squarely within the exception laid down in paragraph 53 of Umadevi, allowing for one-time regularisation of ad hoc employees serving for over 10 years in sanctioned posts.

“Single Judge Misconstrued Facts and Law — Finding Was Dehors Record and Cannot Stand”

The Court found significant perversities and legal misdirections in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who had dismissed the writ petition. It criticized the conclusion that the appellant’s engagement was contractual, stating: “The learned Single Judge ignored record evidence and applied precedents on contractual employment that were wholly inapplicable to the appellant’s case. The conclusion was based on facts not borne out by record — a classic instance of perversity.”

Referring to repeated payments on pay scale, continuous service, and prior recommendations for absorption, the Bench concluded:

“This is not a case of occasional engagement. This is a textbook case of the system exploiting a worker while denying him dignity of tenure and employment rights.”

Final Verdict: Reinstatement, Regularisation, Full Service and Financial Benefits Ordered

The High Court not only set aside the disengagement order of 21.12.2019, but also directed the State to treat the letter of abolition as never issued, to re-instate the appellant immediately, and to consider him for regularisation, along with all consequential service and financial benefits to be granted within three months.

“The appellant is to be reinstated in the same position forthwith treating as if Letter dated 20.12.2019 had never been issued,” the Court ordered.

It added: “All legitimate dues payable as per law be paid to the appellant within the aforesaid period.”

Conclusion: Constitutionally Impermissible Exploitation Must End — State Must Uphold Fairness in Employment

The Orissa High Court has, in this significant ruling, re-affirmed that public employment is not a favour, but a matter of constitutional dignity. The judgment sharply condemns arbitrary bureaucratic decisions that deprive long-serving employees of stability and security.

The Bench declared: “Fairness in governance cannot exclude compassion and factual recognition. The State cannot, in equity or law, discard a worker who served uninterruptedly for 22 years as redundant overnight.”

Date of Decision: 13 May 2025