Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

“Regularisation Cannot Be Antedated Without Legal Grounds,” Rules Orissa High Court

07 September 2024 2:30 PM

By: sayum


The Orissa High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Bikram Parida seeking to antedate the regularisation of his service from the year 1992 or 2000, instead of the existing date of 06.03.2019. In its decision, the Court upheld the municipal administration’s order and cited the lack of legally sustainable grounds for altering the date of regularisation. Justice Murahari Sri Raman presided over the case, emphasizing the importance of judicial discipline and the application of legal precedents.

Bikram Parida, a Homoeopathic Assistant, was initially engaged on a daily wage basis by the Paradeep Notified Area Council on 13.11.1992. Over the years, his service was regularised with effect from 06.03.2019 following a previous High Court order in W.P.(C) No. 4802 of 2008. However, Parida petitioned for the date of his regularisation to be antedated to either 13.11.1992, when he initially joined, or 08.03.2000, when the post of Homoeopathic Assistant was officially sanctioned by the government.

Parida’s primary claim was that his regularisation should have been backdated either to his initial engagement or to the date of post-sanction. His counsel argued that since he had been continuously engaged in the same position since 1992, he was entitled to an earlier date of regularisation, which would enhance his retirement benefits, including pension.

The municipal authorities, in their order dated 06.09.2021, rejected Parida’s representation seeking a change in the date of regularisation. They maintained that the regularisation granted from 06.03.2019 was in accordance with the court’s earlier order. Despite this, Parida escalated the matter, contesting the rejection and filing a writ petition in the Orissa High Court.

The High Court found that there was no sufficient reason to justify antedating the regularisation. It pointed out that Parida’s initial engagement was on an ad hoc basis, and his regularisation was correctly granted from 06.03.2019, the date of the previous court order. The court referenced similar cases, such as Jawaharlal Mohanta v. State of Odisha and Managing Director, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. V. Chiggan Lal, to support its conclusion that there was no legal basis to backdate the regularisation.

“The representation of the petitioner to antedate the date of regularisation was considered and accordingly rejected, being devoid of any merit,” the Court held. It further observed that “the date of regularisation was rightly given with effect from 06.03.2019 in compliance with the previous court’s order”.

The Orissa High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that regularisation of service must adhere to the dates prescribed by judicial orders unless there is a compelling legal basis to change them. By dismissing Parida’s petition, the Court upheld the integrity of prior decisions and maintained consistency in the application of regularisation rules. This decision serves as a critical precedent for similar cases where employees seek to alter the effective date of their regularisation for enhanced benefits.

Date of Decision: 27.08.2024

Bikram Parida v. State of Odisha & Others

Latest Legal News