State Cannot Exploit A Workman For 30 Years And Deny Him Pension: Orissa High Court Orders Notional Regularisation Of DLR Watchman

“After Extracting Three Decades Of Service, The State Cannot Shun Its Responsibility Of Social Security”, On 07 March 2026, the Orissa High Court dealing with the plight of a Daily Labour Roll (DLR) employee who served for over three decades but was denied pensionary benefits.

Justice Murahari Sri Raman, exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, held that the State cannot exploit an employee by extracting decades of service and then deny him pension merely because he was placed in the work-charged establishment instead of the regular establishment.

The Court directed the authorities to consider bringing the petitioner notionally into the Regular/Pensionable Establishment for the period necessary to qualify for pension, and to grant all consequential pensionary benefits within three months.

Background: DLR Watchman Worked Since 1984 But Was Shifted To Work-Charged Establishment

The petitioner Ananta Charan Bal was engaged as a DLR Watchman on 14 May 1984 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Expressway Division, Kendrapara. Later he was transferred to the Rural Works Division in 1991, where he continued to serve uninterruptedly.

Despite his long service, the authorities did not regularise his services even though similarly situated DLR employees were regularised pursuant to Government letters dated 28.07.1998 and 18.05.2000.

Instead, by Office Order dated 25.02.2012, the Executive Engineer brought the petitioner into the Work-Charged Establishment under the Odisha Work-Charged Employees (Appointment and Condition of Service) Instructions, 1974.

The petitioner subsequently retired on 28.02.2015, but because he remained in the work-charged establishment, he was denied pensionary benefits.

The petitioner approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the decision of the authorities and seeking regularisation from 1998 with all consequential benefits. After abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to the High Court.

Legal Issue: Whether Long-Serving DLR Employee Can Be Denied Pension By Keeping Him In Work-Charged Establishment

The core legal issue before the Court was whether placing a DLR employee in the Work-Charged Establishment instead of regularising him in the Regular Establishment—despite long continuous service and availability of posts—was arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

The petitioner argued that:

“Similarly situated DLR employees working in other divisions were regularised in service, whereas the petitioner was denied such benefit despite being senior.”

The State contended that:

• The petitioner’s date of engagement was treated as 01.07.1984 due to lack of records,

• He was therefore brought to the Work-Charged Establishment in 2012 in compliance with policy decisions and the Finance Department Resolution dated 15.05.1997,

• And he was granted the same treatment as other identified DLR employees.

“State As Model Employer Cannot Exploit Workers”

The Court strongly criticised the conduct of the State, emphasising the constitutional obligation of the government as a model employer.

Referring to precedents including Umadevi (2006), M.L. Kesari (2010), Narendra Kumar Tiwari (2018) and various judgments of the Orissa High Court, the Court observed:

“The State should not exploit its employees nor seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of the unemployed persons or employees.”

The Court also highlighted that the petitioner had rendered more than 30 years of continuous service, which itself demonstrated the existence of a perennial requirement for his work.

It remarked that:

“For more than 30 years the model employer-State utilized the service of the petitioner as Watchman.”

Finance Department Resolution Does Not Mandate First Bringing DLR Employees To Work-Charged Establishment

The Court analysed the Finance Department Resolution dated 15.05.1997, which provided a scheme for absorption of NMR/DLR/Job Contract workers.

It noted that the Resolution did not require such workers to first be brought into the Work-Charged Establishment before regularisation.

Relying on earlier judgments, the Court held:

“Nowhere does the Resolution mandate that the NMR/DLR employees must first be brought over to the Work-Charged establishment before regularization.”

Thus, the action of the authorities in placing the petitioner in the work-charged establishment instead of regularising him was found to be contrary to the scheme and judicial precedents.

Discrimination Violates Article 14

The Court also examined the issue of discriminatory treatment, noting that other similarly situated employees were regularised, while the petitioner was not.

The Court reiterated the principle of parity:

“The State cannot adopt different standards for employees similarly placed.”

Failure to extend the same benefits to the petitioner amounted to arbitrary State action violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

Pension Is A Social Security Measure

The Court emphasised the social importance of pension, particularly where an employee has served for decades.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s observations, the Court stated:

“The whole objective of the pension scheme is to support an employee and his family after retirement which is in recognition of his relentless service.”

The Court observed that denying pension after extracting 31 years of service would amount to exploitation by the State.

Direction: Notional Absorption Into Regular Establishment For Pension

Taking note of consistent judicial precedents, the Court held that even after retirement, notional regularisation could be granted to enable pensionary benefits.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the State authorities:

• To consider bringing the petitioner into the Regular/Pensionable Establishment notionally,

• For the period necessary to qualify for pension,

• And to extend all consequential benefits including pension.

The Court ordered that the entire exercise must be completed within three months.

The Orissa High Court reaffirmed that long years of service by casual or DLR employees cannot be ignored by the State. Even where such employees were placed in work-charged establishments, the State cannot deny pensionary benefits after decades of service.

The judgment reiterates that the State must act as a model employer and ensure social security for employees who have devoted their working lives to public service.

Date of Decision: 07 March 2026