The court affirmed that employees engaged long-term on contract are entitled to regularization, emphasizing fair employment rights and the need for governmental compliance with established norms and policies.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Since the present batch of Writ Petitions involve a common issue, all the Writ Petitions were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

4. All the Writ Petitions have been filed inter alia with the similar prayer which reads as follows:

Under the circumstances, this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. parties to show cause as to why the Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued directing the Opposite Parties to extend the benefit of regularising the services of the Petitioners as Accountant with effect from the date(s) they have completed six years of service as per the policy decision of the Government under Annexures- 6,7 & 8 as has been done by the Panchayatiraj Department and Electronics and Information Technology Department under (Annexures-9,10 & 15 series) and pay them all their service and financial benefits as a regular employee retrospectively;

If the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause rule may be made absolute

And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper;

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.

5. It is the case of the Petitioners that Petitioners were appointed as against the post of Accountant in terms of the advertisement issued by the State Urban Development Agency on 19.09.2012 under Annexure-3 and by facing due recruitment process. It is contended that on coming out successful in the said recruitment process, petitioners were all engaged on contractual basis as against the post of Accountant vide orders issued under Annexure-4 dt.30.05.2013.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that since Petitioners were appointed on contractual basis and were allowed to continue as such, in terms of the resolution issued by the G.A. Department on 17.09.2013 under Annexure-6 and further resolution issued by the self-same Department on 16.01.2014 under Annexure-7, Petitioners became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of absorption as against the post of Accountant on completion of 6 years of continuous engagement.

5.2. It is also contended that subsequent to their appointment on contractual basis as against the post of Accountant, vide Office order dt.30.07.2018 of the Government in Urban Housing Development Department, 129 posts of Accountant were created with due concurrence of the Finance Department so issued on 02.02.2015.

5.3. It is contended that on the face of such sanction of 129 posts of Accountant so concurred by the Finance Department on 02.02.2015, Petitioners’ claim to get the benefit of regularisation when was not considered, they approached this Court by filing different Writ Petitions. This Court when directed for consideration of their claim in the light of the order passed in W.P.(C ) No.19951 of 2020, such claim was never considered and accordingly the present Writ Petitions were filed inter alia with the prayer as indicated hereinabove.

5.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that since Petitioners by facing due recruitment process, pursuant to Annexure-3 Advertisement were appointed on contractual basis as against the post of Accountant in the year 2013, in view of the resolution issued by the G.A. Department on 17.09.2013 and 16.01.2014 under Annexures-6 & 7 and the repealing of the 2013 Rules with issuance of the notification on 16.10.2022, Petitioners became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of regular appointment as against the post duly sanctioned vide Office order dt.30.07.2018 under Annexure-