5 min readNew DelhiMar 9, 2026 04:59 PM IST
Orissa High Court news: Holding that the right to equality under Article 14 would support the cause of the “lamb” (employee) and the mighty model employer (lion), who exploited the employee for around 31 years, cannot shun its responsibilities, the Orissa High Court has directed the state government to notionally regularise a retired watchman and ensure his pensionary benefits.
Justice Murahari Sri Raman was hearing the plea of a 59-year-old man, a former Daily Labour Roll (DLR) employee, seeking his post-retirement financial security by recognising him as a regular employee.
Justice Murahari Sri Raman was hearing a plea of a man seeking post-retirement financial security.
“The concept of Article 14 of the Constitution of India would pervade to support the cause of the ‘lamb’ (DLR employee) and the mighty model employer (lion) having exploited the petitioner who worked as a watchman for around 31 years since 1984 till his date of superannuation on in February 2015 cannot now shun its responsibility to provide social security measure,” the court said on March 7.
The order added that the model employer should have acted pragmatically, and instead of putting the blame on the employee, a watchman, being custodian of official records, the opposite parties should have taken much care to verify relevant records maintained by them.
Regularisation, retirement benefits
- The petitioner, Ananta Charan Bal, was initially engaged as a DLR employee in the category of “unskilled watchman” on May 14, 1984.
- Following a transfer in 1991, he continued to serve the Rural Works Department seamlessly.
- Despite his long tenure, he was only brought over to the “work-charged establishment” in February 2012, just three years before his retirement in 2015.
- Bal approached the court seeking regularisation in the “Regular Establishment” effective from 1998, citing available vacancies and the fact that similarly situated counterparts had already received such benefits.
- Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Mihir Kanta Rath submitted that similarly situated DLR employees were brought under the regular establishment in different divisions of the rural works department.
- He stated that merely because the petitioner was transferred to another division in 1991, he should not have been excluded from being brought over to the regular establishment, as his counterparts have been allowed to enjoy the benefit of being retained.
Findings
- The court has been consistently taking the view that long years of service rendered by lowly paid employees like DLRs and NMRs (those on Nominal Muster Roll, i.e., temporary workers) are required to be considered sympathetically for regularisation, and they are entitled to pensionary and other retirement benefits.
- The state has been accepting the view expressed by this court on earlier occasions in respect of many NMR/DLR employees.
- On the same principle, it is required to accept the present matter to maintain consistency.
- No reply or answer is placed, nor is there any objection set up on record by the opposite parties with respect to the discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner.
- This court finds only one objection in the counter affidavit filed by the state that “the petitioner, in compliance with the letter, submitted his reply under, but he failed to submit any conclusive/satisfactory proof concerning his actual date of engagement”.
- The court strongly disapproves of such a stance taken by the employer-opposite executive engineer, Rural Works division, Kendrapara.
- The authority concerned could have easily verified and ascertained the actual date of engagement by calling for records relating to his engagement as DLR from the Office of Expressway Division, Kendrapara, within the same locality/area.
- There is no dispute that his service was required to be regularised, being engaged before April 12, 1993.
- It would be unjustified if the benefit of a pension is not granted to the petitioner who worked based on the daily labour roll.
- The opposite parties are required to bear in mind that the petitioner has worked for the employer since 1984 and subsequently was absorbed and brought over to the work-charged establishment by an order dated February 25, 2012.
- After having put in around 28 years of service, he was allowed to be retired and “relieved from government service” on attaining the age of superannuation in February 2015.
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
