Orissa: Orissa high court pharmacist regularization ruling has become a significant legal development after the high court ruled that the State cannot continue taking regular work from employees through temporary posts for years and later deny them job security. The Court ordered the reinstatement and reconsideration of regularization of a pharmacist whose services were terminated after 14 years, reinforcing the constitutional duty of fairness in public employment.
Orissa High Court Pharmacist Regularization Ruling: What Did the Court Directed
The Orissa High Court observed that the government cannot indefinitely keep employees on temporary or contractual posts while taking regular and permanent work from them.
Read also: Orissa High Court Orders Police to Immediately Inform Courts of Out-of-State Arrests Without Warrant
The Division Bench said that administrative or financial reasons cannot be used as an excuse to deny job security after an employee has served for many years. According to the Court, the State has a constitutional responsibility to treat employees fairly.
Background of the Orissa High Court Pharmacist Regularization Ruling
The case involved Amita Mohapatra, who was appointed as a Pharmacist Fellow on February 7, 2006. She worked continuously until November 23, 2020, when her services were terminated because her post was described as a non-sanctioned temporary post.
She challenged the termination before the High Court through a writ petition.
Earlier Single Judge’s Decision
A Single Judge of the Orissa High Court had earlier ruled in her favour. The Court directed the State government to revoke her termination and reconsider her case for regularization within three months. The Odisha government challenged this order through an intra-court appeal.
Why Did the High Court Reject the State’s Appeal
The Division Bench found that the pharmacist had already completed more than six years of contractual service before her termination.
The Court referred to the General Administration Department Resolution No. 26018 dated September 17, 2013, which provides that employees completing six years of satisfactory contractual service should be treated as regularly appointed, subject to formal orders. The judges noted that this process was never completed despite the employee fulfilling the required conditions.
Supreme Court Judgments Relied Upon
The High Court relied on recent Supreme Court decisions, including:
- Dharam Singh & Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2025)
- Sukhendu Bhattacharjee & Others vs State of Assam (2026)
These judgments emphasize that governments should not continue taking permanent work from temporary employees while keeping them in insecure employment for years.
Orissa High Court Pharmacist Regularization Ruling: Key Observation of the Court
The Bench stated that the State was fully aware of the employee’s appointment from the beginning. Despite this, it continued using her services for over a decade and even recommended her case for regularization. Therefore, the government could not later rely on the temporary nature of the appointment to deny relief.
Read also: Simlipal Tiger Reserve Declared as National Park by Odisha Government
