Judgment

Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.

The petitioners in these two writ applications seek regularization of their services on completion of five years as per the mandate of this Court, Annexure-1 dated 12.11.1996 confirmed by the apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2795-2799/97 on 21.04.1997.They have sought direction to the opposite parties to regularize their services with effect from the date of completion of five years of service as per the principle laid down by this Court in O.J.C. No.9495 of 1995 and a batch of cases decided on 12.11.1996 vide Annexure-1, and extend all the benefits of a regular employee as are being provided to other employees of Water and Land Management Institute (hereinafter referred to (WALMI) and also to release the financial benefits in their favour as they are continuing in services without any break till date.

2. The pleaded facts in O.J.C. No.10093 of 2001 are that petitioner nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 were appointed as Junior Assistants-cum-Typists under opposite party no.1 in the year 1994 whereas petitioner no.5 joined as a Junior Assistant in the year 1992. Petitioner no.6 was appointed as the Junior Laboratory Assistant in the year 1994 and petitioner no.7 was appointed as a Watchman in 1994. In W.P.(C) No.5643 of 2002, petitioner no.1 is working as Junior Engineer and posted at Sakhigopal FOT under WALMI. Similarly, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are working as Junior Engineer at Udala FOT under the Chief Engineer and Director, WALMI, whereas petitioner no.4 is working as an Operator for Projector and Training Equipment, WALMI at Pratapnagari. Since their appointments, they have been continuing against regular (sanctioned) posts under WALMI. While the petitioners were continuing in their respective posts, on 23.12.1995 the opposite parties issued order of their disengagement. Therefore, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had approached this Court by filing O.J.C. No.9520 of 1995, Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were the parties to O.J.C. NO.9521 of 1995, petitioner No.5 had filed O.J.C. No.9635 of 1995, petitioner No.6 had filed O.J.C. No.1383 of 1996 and petitioner No.7 had filed O.J.C. No.8065 of 1997. All the said writ petitions were with similar prayer. All the matters being heard analogously, a common judgment was passed on 12.11.1996 allowing all the writ applications and quashing the order of disengagement of the petitioners issued by the opposite parties vide Annexure-1, and directing the services of the persons who worked for more than five years, to be regularized. Accordingly, opposite party no.1 regularized the services of the petitioners as also others who had completed five years of service or going to complete five years. At the same time though the opposite parties assailed the said judgment passed on 12.11.1996 by this Court before the apex Court in Civil Appeal (Civil) No.2795-2799/97, the same was dismissed vide order of the apex Court dated 21.04.1997. As a consequence thereof, the observation made by this Court in paragraphs-9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment was upheld by the apex Court.

Thereafter, though the petitioners were engaged in service against regular posts, their appointments were made on 89 days basis with a gap of one or two months and again appointed on 89 days basis. Challenging such action of the opposite parties, petitioner nos.1 to 5 had to again file another writ application before this Court being O.J.C. No.1847 of 1998, seeking direction to the opposite parties to allow them to work until regular selection was made. By order dated 10.09.1998, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the opposite parties to issue engagement/appointment orders on 89 days basis with one day break as was being done. Accordingly, the petitioners were allowed to continue in their services. In the process the petitioners completed more than five years against the regular sanctioned posts in the organization. 3. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urged that in v