Regularization of employees engaged for over ten years without interim court orders is mandated; exploitative contractual practices are disallowed.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt.Advocate for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter-alia challenging order dated 11.04.2022 so issued by O.P. No.1 under Annexure-9. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of regularization has been rejected.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner was engaged as Night Watcher in the office of ICDS, Ramanguda, Rayagada w.e.f. 05.11.1997. It is contended that since the petitioner was allowed to continue on daily wages basis w.e.f. 05.11.1997 without being protected by any interim order passed by any Court of law, he became eligible to get the benefit of regularization in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC1.

3.1. It is contended that on the face of such entitlement of the petitioner to get the benefit of regularization in terms of the decision in the case of Uma Devi as cited (supra), when he was not regularized, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.13083 of 2021. This Court vide order dated 08.04.2021, directed Opp. Party No.1 to consider the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of regularization and while directing so, this Court also directed the said Opp. Party to take into consideration the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10748 of 2021 disposed of on 22.03.2021 and W.P.(C) No.12036 of 2021, disposed of on30.03.2021.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without proper appreciation of the long continuance of the petitioner w.e.f. 05.11.1997 and the decision governing the field in the case of Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC-1, State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2015 (8) SCC 265 and Nihal Singh Vrs. State of Punjab, 2013 (14) SCC 65, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 under Annexure- 9, by misinterpreting the judgment passed in the case of Uma Devi as cited (supra).

3.3. It is contended that in view of the continuance of the petitioner on daily wages basis w.e.f. 05.11.1997 which is not disputed, it is to be held that petitioner is continuing against a sanctioned post in view of the decision in the case of Amarkant Rai as cited (supra).

3.4. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi in Para-44 has held as follows:-

“44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (Supra), and referred to in paragraph-15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one- time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened base