The court underscored that compliance with Tribunal orders for regularization should reflect the exact terms set forth in the initial ruling and not result in lateral or unauthorized posts.

ORDER :

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter "the Tribunal") in C.P. No.260/00069 of 2024 and for a direction to punish the opposite parties for committing the offence of contempt for deliverate, willful and intentional violation of the order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.163 of 2018, which has been confirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 02.11.2023 passed in W.P. (C) No.34332 of 2023 with a further direction to regularize the services of the petitioners from initial date of their joining in the respective posts with all consequential service benefits.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate submits that the original application was filed by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal with the following reliefs:-

“(a) Quash the order dtd.15.02.2018 under Annexure-A/8.

(b) Direction be given to the Respondents to regularize the service of the applicants from the date of their joining and release all consequential service benefits within a stipulated time.

(c) Any other direction and/or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper.”

4. The opposite parties entered appearance in the original application and filed their counter affidavit, wherein in paragraph-5, it has been stated as follows:-

“5. That it is humbly submitted that Applicant No.1 Subhankari Das was engaged as Teaching Assistant/Library In- charge w.e.f. 03.07.1995, Applicant No.2 Badreenath Jena was engaged as Technical Assistant w.e.f. 01.04.1995 and Applicant No.3 Jitendra Pati was engaged as Computer Instructor/Teacher w.e.f. 07.01.2002 in Dhenkanal Campus of IIMC on short-term contract basis and their engagement are being extended from time to time usually for periods ranging from six months to one year at a time. They have been designated as Library Coordinator, Technical Coordinator and Academic Coordinator respectively with effect from 17.10.2017 on consideration of their requests, without any change of their remuneration. Their engagements were never done by following elaborate procedure adopted for regular appointments by making advertisements and seeking applications. The Applicants were not selected and appointed against sanctioned posts and as such, the averments made by the Applicants in Clause 4.1 of the Original Application are false, baseless and hence denied. It Is humbly submitted that for their contractual engagement, they were required to sign an Agreement with the IIMC each time an extension was granted indicating the set terms and conditions for such engagement. In the said contractual Agreement, it is categorically mentioned that the engagement of a contractual employee may be terminated by either party by giving one month’s notice and the IIMC could terminate their services by giving one month’s remuneration in lieu such notice, without assigning any reason whatsoever.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal while disposing of the O.A. No.163 of 2018, the learned Tribunal specifically came to held as follows:-

“12. In view of the above discussions, settled position of law and the fact that the applicants are similarly placed to the applicants in the case before Hon'ble High Court of Orissa & New Delhi who have been given regular appointment, on the ground of parity they are to be regularized. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for