Long continuance in service mandates regularization, especially when similar cases have been regularized under court direction.

ORDER :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the order of termination dtd.31.05.1995 or declare it to be invalid and further be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to regularize the service of the petitioner from his initial date of joining and that has been done in case of other and to grant him all consequential service and financial benefits including promotions to the next higher ranks as it has been extended to the similarly situated persons from time to time.”

4. It is contended that vide order dated 22.01.1992 under Annexure-2, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the NMR establishment of Odisha Construction Corporation Limited (In short “Corporation”) on daily wage basis.

4.1. It is contended that while so continuing, petitioner along with so many similarly situated daily wage employees, when were terminated vide order dated 26.05.1995, petitioner along with others challenging the same, approached this Court by filing OJC No.9658 of 1995.

4.2. It is contended that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition on 25.04.1996, petitioner was allowed to continue on daily wage basis in terms of the order of appointment issued under Annexure-2. It is also contended that similarly situated employee terminated along with the petitioner vide order dated 31.05.1995 under Annexure-3, also approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4006 of 1995. This Court vide order dated 28.03.1997, while disposing the Writ Petition, directed the Opp. Party- Corporation to regularize the petitioner therein against any vacancy that would arise in future. In terms of such direction, petitioner therein was regularized vide order dated 06.07.1998 under Annexure-12. 

4.3. It is contended that petitioner in OJC No.4006 of 1995 as like the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis on 22.01.1992 and petitioner was engaged on 15.10.1992. However, both of them along with others were terminated vide order dated 31.05.1995 under Annexure-3.

4.4. It is contended that in terms of the interim order passed in OJC No.9658 of 1995, though petitioner was allowed to continue, but petitioner was never regularized on the face of his long continuance on daily wage basis w.e.f. 15.10.1992. It is contended that since petitioner in OJC No.4006 of 1995 was regularized vide order dated 6.7.1998 under Annexure-2, petitioner being similarly situated should have been extended with similar benefit of regularization.

4.5. It is however contended that OJC No.9658 of 1995 when was disposed of as having become infructuous vide order dated 01.05.2019 under Annexure-6 without proper appreciation, petitioner filed an application for revival of the Writ Petition and the same was allowed vide order dated 13.03.2020 in CMAPL No.374 of 2019.

4.6. After such restoration of the Writ Petition, vide order dated 18.03.2020, OJC No.9658 of 1995 was disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh Writ Petition, if any cause of action still survives. Pursuant to such liberty the present writ petition has been filed with the prayer as indicated here-in-above.

4.7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since by the time the Writ Petition was disposed of on 13.03.2020, petitioner was continuing on contractual basis without getting the benefit of regularization, he filed the present writ petition inter alia seeking a direction on the Corporation to regularize his service. It is contended that since from his initial