You Can’t Punish Protest with Termination — Disengaging Contract Workers Without Hearing Is Illegal: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement of SOG Employees

“O.M. Declared Unconstitutional Can’t Be Used to Justify Termination — Equality Before Law Is Not Optional”, - In a strong and significant verdict Orissa High Court quashed termination orders issued against a group of contractual Class-IV employees of the Special Operation Group (SOG) and directed their reinstatement in service. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra held that the disengagement orders issued in 2012, and the State’s rejection of their representation in 2024, were both arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

“The impugned orders are legally unsustainable… If those orders are allowed to stand, it would amount to arbitrary conduct and result in violation of Articles 14 and 16.”

“You Were Fired for Peacefully Protesting — But Given No Hearing, No Inquiry”

The petitioners had been appointed as contractual Class-IV staff such as barbers, cooks, and daftaris under the administrative control of the Odisha Police. In 2012, they were disengaged from service after allegedly participating in a peaceful dharna at Lower PMG, Bhubaneswar, to press for demands relating to their service conditions. The disengagement orders were passed without issuing show cause notices or conducting any enquiry.

The Court noted that: “The order of disengagement does not reveal that the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing… Such action is not in conformity with the principles of natural justice.”

Despite the petitioners’ representations being supported by earlier High Court orders, the State rejected their requests for reinstatement in 2024, citing a now-invalid Office Memorandum dated 23.06.2012, which permitted automatic termination after 15 days of absence.

“The Government Relied on a Rule Already Struck Down — That’s Not Just Wrong, It’s Unconstitutional”

The Court pointedly held that the Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 23.06.2012, relied upon by the State to justify the termination, had already been declared ultra vires to Articles 14 and 16 in the case of Ramesh Sahoo v. State of Odisha.

“Since such judgment of the Division Bench has attained finality, the O.M. dated 23.06.2012 no more exists in the eye of law… It cannot be relied upon by the State to defend its conduct.”

In a scathing remark, the Court stated: “The main plank of the order dated 16.08.2024 gets demolished as it rests entirely on an unconstitutional memorandum.”

“When Identically Situated Workers Were Reinstated, You Can’t Exclude a Few — That’s Discrimination”

The petitioners demonstrated that several other employees who also participated in the same protest — and were initially terminated alongside them — were later reinstated and even regularized. However, the petitioners alone remained excluded from such relief.

“Treating the petitioners differently would be discriminatory… The factual backdrop of their case is almost identical to those who were reinstated.”

The Court warned against selective reinstatement, stating: “Equality before law is not optional — administrative fairness demands uniform treatment unless backed by valid grounds.”

“No Work, No Pay — But Yes to Compensation for Arbitrary Disengagement”

Acknowledging that the petitioners were contractual employees and had not rendered service during the intervening period, the Court denied regular back wages but ordered compensatory relief.

“The Court directs the Opposite Parties to pay a lump sum compensation amount of ₹50,000/- to each of the petitioners.”

Additionally, the Court directed that the entire period of disengagement must count for continuity in service and all other service benefits.

Allowing the writ petition, the Orissa High Court held that the termination of the petitioners in 2012 was illegal, and that the State's 2024 order reaffirming the same termination was tainted with reliance on a non-existent rule. It directed that the petitioners be reinstated in contractual service immediately, paid compensation, and granted continuity of service for benefit calculations.

“This Court has no hesitation in quashing the impugned orders… The writ petition stands allowed.”

This ruling affirms that protesting employees, even if contractual, cannot be dismissed without due process, and that the State must act within the bounds of constitutional equality and administrative fairness.

Date of Decision: April 16, 2025