The right to regularisation from the initial date of appointment is upheld when similarly situated employees are granted such benefits, confirming the principles of equality and non-discrimination in employment law.

ORDER :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

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

2. Mr. P.K. Chand, learned counsel filed his vakalatnama in support of his appearance in Court. The same be kept on record.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.02.03.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-10. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularisation from his initial date of engagement was rejected.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was initially appointed as a Jr. Clerk vide order dt.29.12.1986 on 89 days basis. Subsequently vide order dt.26.03.1987, Petitioner was so appointed with the condition that Petitioner will continue till the post is filled up by passed out candidates sponsored by the Collector of the District. However, while so continuing, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dt.25.01.1988.

5.1. Accordingly, challenging such termination, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1225 of 1994. The Tribunal vide order dt.17.04.1996, when directed the authority concerned to re-instate the Petitioner and to grant him the increment notionally for the entire period, Petitioner was re-instated vide order dt.15.07.1996 under Annexure-11, where he joined on 02.08.1996. It is also contended that the increment as due and admissible was also sanctioned vide order dt.04.06.2004 under Annexure-12, by taking the initial date of appointment as 12.01.1987.

5.2. It is contended that on the face of such continuance with the order of re-engagement passed under Anenxure-11 and sanction of the increment as due and admissible from 1.1.1989 onwards vide order at Annexure-12, Petitioner when was not regularised, on the face of such regularisation issued in favour of similarly situated employees vide notification dt.30.06.2014 under Annexure-1 prospectively, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1596 of 2015.

5.3. It is contended that vide order dt.17.08.2017 under Annexure-2, the Tribunal while disposing O.A. No.1596 of 2015 issued the following direction:

Accordingly, the O.A is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to extend the benefit of regularisation as has been done in the case of employees vide Annxure-12 with all consequential benefits and such action be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Tribunal directed to extend the benefit of regularisation as has been done in the case of employees vide Anexure-12 ( Annexure-1 to the present Writ Petition) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order.

5.5. It is contended that in terms of the order so passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-2, Petitioner was required to get the benefit of regularisation from the date similarly situated applicants got the said benefit vide notification dt.30.06.2014 under Annexure-1 of Opp. Party No.1. However, it is contended that such notification issued on 30.06.2014, was assailed by 2 (two) of the beneficiaries by filing OA. No.251(C ) of 2015 and 3828(C ) of 2014. The Tribunal vide order dt.23.02.2018 under Annexure-3, while quashing the order of regularisation so issued on 30.06.2014, directed Opp. Party No.1 to reconsider and modify the orders of regularisation, by regularising the services of the applicants therein from their initial date of appointment and by extending all consequential benefits. Extract of the order passed under Annexure-3 reads as follows:

Therefore, the impugned order vide Annexure-7 is not maintainable and is quashed to the extent of their regularization prospective