CUTTACK: In a significant ruling on the treatment of contractual employees, the Orissa High Court has ruled that the state cannot exploit workers through prolonged temporary arrangements and then deny them security of employment.
A division bench comprising Justices Krishna S Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash dismissed the state government’s appeal against an order granting relief to a pharmacist whose services were terminated after more than 14 years of continuous work.
The bench upheld a single judge’s July 16, 2024 order directing authorities to revoke the termination of pharmacist Amita Mohapatra and reconsider her claim for regularisation in accordance with law.
Finding no perversity or legal infirmity in the judge’s reasoning, the bench dismissed the writ appeal and granted the state three months to implement the directions issued earlier.
The state had argued that Mohapatra, engaged on a contractual basis at Acharya Harihar Regional Cancer Centre Hospital, Cuttack, was not appointed against a sanctioned post and therefore had no legal right either to continue in service or seek regularisation. It contended that the single judge had erred in interfering with the termination order.
Rejecting the contention, the bench observed that Mohapatra had been continuously serving since February 7, 2006 and had worked for over 14 years before her termination on November 23, 2020.
The court noted that competent authorities had repeatedly recommended her case for regularisation and that she had completed well beyond the six-year contractual period prescribed under the General Administration department’s September 17, 2013 resolution.
“The State cannot indefinitely extract work of a perennial nature through temporary arrangements and thereafter rely upon administrative or financial considerations to justify continued insecurity of employment,” the bench observed, adding that constitutional obligations of fairness do not disappear merely because an engagement is termed contractual.
The bench also found fault with the timing of the termination order, observing that it was issued when her claim for regularisation was awaiting final consideration.
