Long-term contingent employees are entitled to regularization after ten years of continuous service, barring any lawful justification for their ongoing temporary status.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for Petitioner and learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 16.09.2021, so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-15. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of Regularization as against the post of Peon in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 was rejected.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the order issued by the Govt. on 27.07.1995, petitioner vide order dated 01.01.2002, so issued by Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-1, was engaged as a contingent paid Chowkidar (Night Watchman) on daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.01.2002. Petitioner in terms of the said order, joined on 01.01.2002 itself as reflected from Annexure-2. Such engagement of the petitioner as a contingent paid Chowkidar, engaged in the office of Opp. Party No.4 was also communicated vide letter issued under Annexure-3.

3.1. It is also contended that such engagement of the petitioner as a contingent paid Chowkidar (Night Watchman) was approved by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar vide his letter dated 26.11.2015 under Annexure-9.

3.2. However, on the face of such continuance of the petitioner as a contingent paid Night Watchman w.e.f. 01.01.2002 and approval of the post vide letter dated 26.11.2015 under Annexure-9, when no step was taken to regularize the services of the petitioner on the face of the request made under Annexure-10, petitioner seeking such benefit, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.13081 of 2021.

3.3. This Court vide order dated 08.04.2021, when directed for consideration of the petitioner’s claim 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 SCC-1 and State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC 247, such claim of the petitioner was rejected relying on the notification dated 12.11.2013 so issued by the Govt. in the G.A. and P.G. Department and on the ground that Group-C and Group-D posts like watch and ward, cleaning and sweeping and gardening etc. are to be filled up through outsourcing.

3.4. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similarly situated person engaged as contingent paid Chowkidar was regularized pursuant to the order passed by the Collector, Kandhamal on 18.01.2021 under Annexure- 13 series. It is also contended that request made by the Collector, Kandhamal in his letter dated 18.01.2021, were duly implemented and the said implementation has been admitted by Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4 in Para-17 of the counter affidavit. Para-17 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-

“17. That in reply to the averments made in Para-11 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, Shri Dillip Kumar Das was disengaged vide Letter No. 795/SWE dtd. 16.01.2015 of the Sub-Collector, Puri. The services of Sri Umesh Chandra-Dilla was regularised by the CDPO, Sundargarh without following the existing rules and without the approval of Government in W&CD Department for which a show cause reply has been sought from the Ex-CDPO (now Retd.), Tangarpali, Sundargarh. The services of Sri Bhuleswar Pradhan in Class-IV post has been regularised by the W & CD Department in compliance to Order dtd 09.12.2016 in OA No. 253/2014 and Order dtd. 05.12.2019 in WP(C) No. 8560/2019 (Bhuleswar Pradhan-vrs-State), after obtaining concurrence of the Finance Department. Each case has to be decided on its own merits and no discrimination has been made against the Petitioner.”

3.5. A further submission is also made that since petitioner is continuing as a contingent paid Chowkidar on d