Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service

“Right to Livelihood Cannot Be Compromised By Bureaucratic Inaction Or Artificial Breaks” – In a strong rebuke to exploitative employment practices within government institutions, the Orissa High Court has held that a daily wager working continuously for over two decades on 44-day rolling contracts is entitled to regularization, notwithstanding the absence of a sanctioned post. The ruling, delivered on 5th December 2025 in Ajaya Kumar Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C)(OAC) No. 3046 of 1998), decisively quashed the petitioner’s disengagement and directed the State to create a post of Junior Grade Typist and regularize his service within three months.

Justice Sashikanta Mishra, while delivering the 14-page judgment, categorically held that: “Engagement of the petitioner for so long on ad hoc basis is nothing but exploitation of an employee by the employer.”

“Artificial Breaks Cannot Conceal Real Employment – Over Two Decades Of Service Is Proof Of Necessity”

The petitioner, Ajaya Kumar Sahoo, was first appointed as a Junior Typist in the Odisha Staff Selection Commission (OSSC) on 11.12.1996 on a 44-day contract. This arrangement continued for over 25 years through repeated extensions, with a one-day break between each term — a well-known method used to evade regularization obligations.

Though the petitioner’s engagement was technically terminated on 30.09.2022, the Court found that the nature of his continuous work left no doubt that the role was essential, recurrent, and not temporary.

Refusing to accept the "technical disengagement", Justice Mishra noted: “The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently frowned upon this practice of engaging persons with artificial breaks to disown responsibility. This Court would therefore not be impressed by the argument that the petitioner’s engagement was not continuous.”

“Right to Livelihood Is Part Of Article 21 – State Cannot Evade It By Hiding Behind Administrative Bottlenecks”

The OSSC had argued that the petitioner could not be regularized because no sanctioned post of Junior Typist existed, and that he was only engaged against a vacant Senior Typist post. The Court rejected this contention as unsustainable, asserting that the administrative failure of the State could not defeat the constitutional right to livelihood.

Justice Mishra held: “When administrative bottlenecks are pitted against the need to do substantial justice, the latter would gain precedence.”

Citing the landmark Supreme Court decisions in Jaggo v. Union of India [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826], Shripal v. Nagar Nigam [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 221], and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. [(2025) INSC 998], the Court reaffirmed that:

“Right to livelihood is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21. The employer cannot hide behind inaction, delay, or bureaucratic lethargy to deny the legitimate rights of long-serving employees.”

“No Post? Create One. No Excuses Left After 25 Years Of Continuous Work”

In what can only be seen as a direct instruction to the State, the Court categorically ordered the Government to create the post of Junior Grade Typist with retrospective notional effect from the date of initial engagement, and regularize the petitioner in such post — though it clarified that no financial benefits shall be paid for the past period, other than notional continuity for all service-related benefits.

Justice Mishra remarked: “Non-availability of post cannot stand in the way of regularizing his service, for creation of posts is within the domain of the Government.”

Court Denounces Exploitative State Practices: “This Is Not Temporary Work, It Is Systemic Avoidance”

Taking note of modern jurisprudence on the abuse of short-term contractual employment in government setups, the Court quoted extensively from Jaggo v. Union of India:

“It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation... such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.”

The Court observed that the petitioner’s position was “essential, recurring, and integral” to the functioning of the OSSC, and yet he had been denied dignity and continuity of service for over 25 years — a clear case of administrative exploitation.

Engagement For 25 Years Not Temporary — Regularization Ordered, Disengagement Quashed

Allowing the writ petition in full, the Orissa High Court issued the following directives:

• The disengagement order dated 30.09.2022 is quashed.

• The petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service.

• The State is directed to create the post of Junior Grade Typist from the date of initial engagement (11.12.1996).

• The petitioner shall be regularized in such post without back wages, but with notional continuity for all other service benefits.

• The entire process must be completed within three months.

Justice Mishra concluded with a sharp reminder that bureaucratic inertia cannot erode the fundamental dignity of employment, particularly when the State itself has extracted labour continuously for decades without giving formal recognition.

Date of Decision: 05.12.2025