Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will

“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

Similar News