Logo

State Can't Keep Employees Temporary Forever: Orissa HC Upholds Relief for Pharmacist Terminated After 14 Years of Service

Zaved Khan

The Orissa High Court dismissed the State's appeal, holding that a contractual pharmacist's long service and pending regularisation claim could not be defeated merely because she worked against a non-sanctioned post. - State of Odisha & Anr. v. Amita Mohapatra

State Can't Keep Employees Temporary Forever: Orissa HC Upholds Relief for Pharmacist Terminated After 14 Years of Service
Join Telegram

The Orissa High Court has refused to interfere with an earlier order directing the Odisha government to revoke the termination of a contractual pharmacist and reconsider her claim for regularisation. The Division Bench observed that the State could not continue taking an employee's services for years and later rely on the absence of a sanctioned post to defeat her legitimate claim.

Background of the Case

Amita Mohapatra had been working as a Pharmacist Fellow since February 2006 and remained in service for more than 14 years before her services were terminated in November 2020. The government argued that she was engaged on a contractual basis and was not appointed against a sanctioned post, making her ineligible for continuation or regularisation. Earlier, a Single Judge had directed the authorities to revoke her termination and reconsider her case for regularisation, prompting the State to file the present appeal.

Court's Observation

The Bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash noted that Mohapatra had served continuously for over a decade and that the competent authorities themselves had repeatedly recommended her case for regularisation.

Referring to recent Supreme Court rulings, the Court observed,

"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 Court further held that merely because an employee was working against a non-sanctioned post could not automatically defeat her claim when the State had knowingly continued her engagement and kept the regularisation process pending.

The Bench remarked,

"To permit the State... 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."

Decision

Finding no legal error in the Single Judge's reasoning, the Division Bench dismissed the State's writ appeal. It granted the authorities three months to implement the earlier directions, including revoking the termination order and reconsidering Mohapatra's claim for regularisation in accordance with law.

Case Details:

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

Case Number: W.A. No. 648 of 2025

Judge: Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Chittaranjan Dash

Decision Date: 22 June 2026