Eligibility for regularization after six years of contract employment is upheld by relevant notifications and legal precedents.

ORDER :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Ms. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.03.06.2022 so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-4. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization under the provisions contained in Notification dtd.12.11.2013 of the G.A. Department and further notification issued by the said Department has been rejected.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner by facing due selection process was engaged as a Peon in the establishment of Odisha Administrative Tribunal in the year 2011 on daily wage basis. While so continuing as a daily wage Peon in the establishment of Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Govt. when created 4 posts of Peon for their engagement in Odisha Administrative Tribunal on contractual basis, taking into account the fact that Petitioner was duly selected while being engaged as a daily wage Peon in the year 2011, Petitioner was appointed as against one of such created posts of Peon vide order dtd.28.11.2014 under Annexure-2 on contractual basis.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was appointed on contractual basis vide order of appointment issued on 28.11.2014 under Annexure-1, in view of the G.A. Department Resolution issued on 12.11.2013 and further Resolution issued on 14.01.2014, Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of regularization after completion of 6 years of continuous service on contractual basis.

4.2. However, when the same was not extended, Petitioner moved the authority and thereafter this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4733 of 2022. This Court vide order dtd.17.02.2022 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.03.06.2022 under Annexure-4 on the ground that while being appointed on contractual basis, since no selection process has been followed nor ORV Act & Rules has been followed, the very appointment of the Petitioner on contractual basis is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of regularization.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner placing reliance on the documents available under Annexure-4, contended that Petitioner while being engaged on daily wage basis, a selection process was initiated and out of 21 candidates who made their applications, the Selection Committee in its proceeding dtd.12.10.2011, found eligible 6 persons and Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 3 of the said list. Accordingly, Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as a Peon in the year 2011 by facing due selection process so initiated by OAT. During his continuance on daily wage basis when Govt. created 4 posts of Peon vide letter dtd.25.10.2014 under Annexure-A/1, the authorities of Odisha Administrative Tribunal thinks it fit and proper to appoint the Petitioner against one such created post of Peon taking into account his continuance as a daily wage Peon in the year 2011 and issued the order of appointment on 28.11.2014 under Annexure-1. Appointment of the Petitioner on contractual basis was also never objected by the State-Opp. Parties.

4.4. It is contended that since 28.11.2014 Petitioner is continuing on contractual basis till date. Placing reliance on stipulation contained in Resolution dtd.12.11.2013 further Resolution issued on 14.01.2014, it is contended that Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization is squarely covered by the said Resolution as he has already continued for more than 10 years in the meantime.

4.5.