Orissa HC Upholds Pharmacist's Regularisation Claim After 14 Years of Continuous Service, Dismisses State's Appeal
The Orissa High Court dismissed the State of Odisha's appeal against a direction to revoke termination of a pharmacist who served over 14 years, holding the non-sanctioned post plea cannot shield the State's own inaction.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, comprising Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, on 22 June 2026 dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State of Odisha challenging a Single Judge's direction to revoke the termination of Amita Mohapatra, a Pharmacist who had rendered more than fourteen years of continuous service. The Division Bench held that the State could not rely on the absence of a sanctioned post as a complete answer to her regularisation claim when that very circumstance had been within the exclusive knowledge and control of the authorities throughout her engagement, and when the regularisation process had been actively pending at the time of her termination.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Amita Mohapatra was initially engaged as a Pharmacist Fellow on 7 February 2006. She continued in service until the order of termination dated 23 November 2020, accumulating more than fourteen years of continuous service. Following the merger of the Pain and Palliative Care Unit with the Department of Anaesthesiology of Acharya Harihar Regional Cancer Centre Hospital, Cuttack, she continued to discharge duties as a Pharmacist.
The competent authority had, on more than one occasion, recommended her case for regularisation. She had earlier approached the High Court seeking consideration of her regularisation claim. Pursuant to directions issued by the Court, and in view of the Odisha Pharmacist Service (Methods of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2019, the process of preparing and finalising a gradation list was underway. It was during the pendency of that exercise that the State terminated her on the ground that she was working against a non-sanctioned post.
She challenged the termination by filing W.P.(C) No.33088 of 2020. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 16 July 2024, directing the authorities to revoke the termination order and to re-examine the question of regularisation of her service in accordance with law. The State of Odisha filed W.A. No.648 of 2025 against that judgment, with a delay of 221 days. The Division Bench condoned the delay after finding sufficient cause shown in I.A. No.1686 of 2025.
The State's Contention and the Legal Issue
The principal contention advanced by the Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State was that Amita Mohapatra, being a contractual employee not appointed against a sanctioned post, had no enforceable right either to continue in service or to seek regularisation. On that basis, the State argued that the Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the termination order.
The legal question before the Division Bench was whether the absence of a sanctioned post could, in the peculiar facts of this case, operate as a complete and self-sufficient answer to a regularisation claim where the State had itself utilised the employee's services for over a decade, recommended her regularisation, and allowed the regularisation process to remain inconclusive before abruptly terminating her.
A further dimension arose from G.A. Department Resolution No.26018 dated 17 September 2013, which contemplated that upon satisfactory completion of six years of contractual service, the concerned employee would be deemed to have been regularly appointed, with a formal order to be issued by the appointing authority. By the time of termination, Amita Mohapatra had already completed more than six years of contractual service. The Division Bench observed that whether she ultimately satisfied every requirement for regularisation was not the issue; the significance of the Resolution was that her claim was neither illusory nor speculative, but was recognised by the governing policy framework and was under active consideration.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Chittaranjan Dash, writing the judgment, drew on two recent Supreme Court decisions to frame the constitutional dimension of the State's conduct.
The first was Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 INSC 998, where the Supreme Court, relying on Jaggo v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, and State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, reiterated the constitutional obligation of the State as a model employer. The Supreme Court had stated that “the State is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer” and that financial stringency is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason, and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. It had also observed that where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices.
The second decision was Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others v. State of Assam and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 529, where the Supreme Court again drew on the same line of authorities and emphasised that regularisation cannot be denied solely because the initial appointment was not against a sanctioned post. The Supreme Court had held that Umadevi (3) cannot be invoked as a blanket barrier to justify prolonged and continued engagements of a temporary or ad hoc nature, especially where employees have been discharging essential and recurring functions of the State. The distinction between illegal and irregular appointments must be kept in view, and long and continuous service is a relevant consideration.
Applying these principles, the Division Bench held that 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 constitutional obligation of fairness does not cease merely because the engagement is described as contractual.
The Bench found that the Single Judge had rightly noticed that Amita Mohapatra's regularisation case had remained pending despite recommendations by the competent authority. The State had continued to avail her services for more than a decade while simultaneously permitting the regularisation process to remain inconclusive. In those circumstances, the plea that she was occupying a non-sanctioned post could not be examined in isolation from the conduct of the authorities themselves.
The Division Bench was also unable to accept the State's contention that her claim must fail solely because she was working against a non-sanctioned post. While the existence of a sanctioned post may be a relevant consideration in a regularisation claim, it could not be treated as a complete answer in the peculiar facts of this case. The State was fully aware of the nature of her engagement from the very inception. Despite that knowledge, it continued to utilise her services for more than a decade, recommended her regularisation, and permitted the process to remain pending.
To permit the State, in such circumstances, to rely upon the very ground which existed throughout the period of engagement would amount to allowing it to take advantage of its own inaction. If she was indeed working against a non-sanctioned post, that circumstance was always within the exclusive knowledge and control of the authorities. The termination had been issued precisely when her regularisation claim was awaiting culmination, and the Single Judge was therefore justified in holding that the authorities could not defeat that claim by abruptly terminating her engagement and then citing the absence of a sanctioned post.
Outcome
The Division Bench found no perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest illegality in the reasoning of the Single Judge. The directions issued by the Single Judge merely required revocation of the termination and reconsideration of Amita Mohapatra's claim for regularisation in accordance with law. The Bench held that no case for interference in exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction was made out.
W.A. No.648 of 2025 was dismissed. The State of Odisha and the other appellant were granted three months from the date of the judgment to implement the directions issued by the Single Judge in the judgment dated 16 July 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.33088 of 2020. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly. The Registry was directed to send a copy of the judgment forthwith by Registered Post or Speed Post to the Respondent.