IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of long-serving employees to be treated as permanent regular employees and the inapplicability of new recruitment conditions to existing employees.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present petitions are filed by the respective petitioners under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs;

“(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue and order, direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to immediately treat the petitioners as permanent regular employees w.e.f. 9- 5-2013 in compliance with the Municipal Resolution dated 28-9-2012 and be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the arrears with 12% interest thereon;

(B) That Your Lordships be further pleased to quash and set aside the Advertisement marked ANN.C and quashed and set aside the conditions laid down in the letter dated 17-4-2013, being illegal, arbitrary, against the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal which has attained finality;

(C) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to start paying regular salary in the time-scale of pay forthwith;

(D) Any other and such further relief as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice;”

2. As both the petitions are arising out of the same issue, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The issues arise in both the petitions are to treat the petitioners as permanent regular employees with the Municipal and to pay the arrears with interest.

4. As both the petitions are relating to the same issue, both the petitions have been tagged and the same are disposed of by this common judgment by treating Special Civil application No.6388 of 2016 as lead matter.

5. So far as the lead matter, i.e. Special Civil Application No.6388 of 2016 is concerned, same is arising from the following background of facts:-

5.1 It is the case of the petitioners that respondent – Nagarpalika issued advertisement for filling up 27 posts instead of regularizing the services of the petitioners. That the petitioners have raised their grievance by preferring Reference before the Industrial Tribunal wherein a settlement has been arrived at and the Tribunal disposed of the Reference. Pursuant to the settlement entered into, an order was passed by the Chief Officer of the Nagarpalika regularizing the services of the petitioners and accordingly, the reference was disposed of by the Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioners that as the letter was not handed over to the individual person/s, the workmen asked the documents under the Right to Information Act and the Chief Officer of the Right to Information Act issued letter indicating the fact that the letter of appointment was issued to the petitioners. Thereafter, the Nagarpalika has issued resolution dated 28.09.2012 mentioning that 27 persons to be regularized in the services and pursuant to the said resolution, an order came to be passed by the Director of Municipalities. That petitioners are working for more than 25 to 30 years continuously and uninterruptedly and so far as the advertisement is concerned, the same is for the new recruitment and does not pertain to the petitioners who are working for more than 30 years. That pursuant to the resolution and after approval of the Director of Municipalities, appointment orders were issued and on account of issuance of the appointment order pursuant to the settlement the respondents are restrained the petitioners from putting a condition of appointment for a period of five years on consolidated wage and after five years they are to be placed in the regular time-scale of pay. The respondents are estopped from raising issue for issuance of appointment order on regular establishment on the basis of the Municipal Resolution.

5.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned action on the part of the respondents of issuance of advertisement and making further condition in the letter dated 17.04.2013, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions.

6. Heard Mr.T. R. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr