'State Can't Indefinitely Extract Work Through Temporary Posts': Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Pharmacist Terminated After 14 Yrs Service

The Orissa High Court has recently held that the State cannot abruptly and arbitrarily remove a person holding a non-sanctioned temporary post, on the ground of contractual nature of her service or financial and administrative constraints for regularization, after extracting regular work from her for decades. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 66]

While upholding a Single Bench order which granted relief to a lady Pharmacist who was terminated after 14-years of continued service, the Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed–

“The principle emerging from the aforesaid decisions is 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 respondent was engaged as a Pharmacist Fellow on 07.02.2006 and continued in service till termination on 23.11.2020, despite multiple requests for regularisation. She was terminated on the ground that she was working on a non-sanctioned post.

Challenging this, the respondent had filed a writ petition. By the impugned order, the Single Judge had found that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for regularization of her services. It had directed the authorities to revoke the termination and reexamine the matter of regularization within three months.

Assailing the aforesaid direction, the State filed this intra-court appeal.

Upon hearing the parties, the Court noted that on the date of her termination, the respondent had already completed more than six years of contractual service and as per the scheme of G.A. Department Resolution No. 26018 dated 17.09.2013, upon satisfactory completion of six years of contractual service, the concerned employee would be deemed to have been regularly appointed, with a formal order of appointment to be issued by the appointing authority. However, the same was not done in the case of the respondent.

By placing reliance upon the recent judgments of the Apex Court in Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 818 and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others vs. State of Assam and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 529, the Bench reiterated that the State is under a constitutional obligation to abstain from extracting perennial work from a temporary/contractual employee, keeping her in continued insecurity of employment. Accordingly, it held–

“We are also unable to accept the principal contention of the Appellants that the Respondent's claim must fail solely because she was working against a non-sanctioned post...The State was fully aware of the nature of her engagement from the very inception. Despite such knowledge, it continued to utilise her services for more than a decade, recommended her case for regularisation and permitted the process relating to regularisation to remain pending.”

The Court was of the view that to permit the State to rely upon temporary nature of employment, which existed throughout the period of engagement would amount to allowing it to take advantage of its own inaction.

As a corollary, the Single Bench judgment was upheld and the authorities were granted three months' time to implement the same.

Case Title: State of Odisha & Anr. v. Amita Mohapatra

Case No: WA No. 648 of 2025

Date of Judgment: June 22, 2026

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. U.C. Behera, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: None

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 66

Click Here To Read/Download Order