'Welfare State Can't Be Apathetic': Orissa High Court on Employee's Regularisation

The Orissa High Court has set aside an order rejecting the regularisation plea of a long-serving contractual employee of Shailabala Women’s Autonomous College in Cuttack, observing that a welfare state cannot remain indifferent to a person whose services have been utilised for several years. Justice Murahari Sri Raman, while hearing the petition filed by Santosh Kumar Patra, directed the Odisha government to reconsider his request for regularisation in accordance with the applicable rules and the principles laid down in the judgment. The court also directed the competent authority to take a fresh decision within three months.

Patra had approached the High Court challenging the rejection of his regularisation request by the Higher Education Department. According to the case records, he had been associated with the college for a prolonged period and had served as a laboratory attendant in the Computer Science department. During his tenure, he was also assigned duties in other departments and was involved in activities connected with admissions and examinations.

The employee argued that despite rendering continuous service for years and receiving no adverse remarks regarding his performance, his request for regularisation had been rejected on procedural grounds. He also pointed to the treatment of another employee of the same institution whose services had subsequently been regularised.

The state authorities, while opposing the plea, relied on the manner in which Patra had initially been engaged. The government contended that his appointment had not followed the prescribed recruitment procedure and that the engagement was not made against a regular sanctioned vacancy. The High Court, however, took a broader view of the circumstances. It noted that where an employee's services have been continuously utilised by a public institution for a substantial period, the authorities must examine the matter fairly rather than simply relying on shortcomings connected with the original engagement.

The court emphasised that public administration must operate in accordance with constitutional principles and cannot adopt an indifferent approach towards individuals who have continued to serve public institutions for years. The observation that a “welfare state can’t be apathetic” underlined the court's concern over prolonged uncertainty faced by employees working under temporary or contractual arrangements.

At the same time, the court did not grant automatic permanent employment to Patra. Instead, it quashed the earlier rejection order and directed the competent authority to reconsider his case after taking into account the relevant rules, his period of service and the circumstances surrounding his employment.

The judgment also brings renewed attention to the wider issue of contractual employment in government institutions. While recruitment to public posts must ordinarily comply with prescribed procedures, prolonged contractual arrangements can create uncertainty for employees who continue performing regular duties for many years.

The Orissa High Court's decision therefore does not mean that every contractual worker is automatically entitled to regularisation. Rather, it makes clear that authorities must give proper and fair consideration to individual cases, particularly where a person's services have been continuously used over a long period. The case is significant in the continuing legal debate over contractual employment, regularisation and the responsibilities of government institutions towards long-serving workers.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from Hindustan Times.