Court determination that non-regularization of the petitioner was erroneous as vacancy for ST category remained unfilled during 2004-2008, thus justifying retrospective regularization.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

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

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are interrelated, both the matters were heard analogously and disposed of with the present common order.

3. While Writ Petition No.11588 of 2022 has been filed inter alia with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to revive the order of regularization of the Petitioner so issued on 07.09.2001 under Annexure-6 in accordance with the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.340 of 1994, with quashing of the orders issued under Annexures-9, 18, 19 and 21 and sanction of consequential benefits, W.P.(C) No.11592 of 2022 has been filed with similar prayer but with another prayer to condone the break period from 2005 to 2007 for the purpose of sanction of pension (wrongly typed as Family Pension) under the old Rule.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was engaged as an Asst. Librarian on daily wages basis in the establishment of Opposite Party No.3 on 20.09.1988. Petitioner while so continuing on daily wages basis, Petitioner was disengaged on 01.07.1990. Subsequently, Petitioner though was reengaged on 17.07.1991, but was again disengaged on 09.06.1992. However, Petitioner was again re- engaged on 01.07.1992 on daily wages basis and was allowed to continue as such. Opposite Party No.4 was also similarly engaged and disengaged like the Petitioner, till both of them were allowed to continue w.e.f. 01.07.1992 as reflected in Annexure-2.

4.1. It is further contended that Petitioner along with Opposite Party No.4 while so continuing on daily wage basis, they were engaged on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 26.07.1993 under Opposite Party No.3. Not only that while so continuing on-ad hoc basis, Petitioner was allowed to draw revised scale of pay as against the post of Asst. Librarian vide order dtd.20.03.1999 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 along with Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-3. Petitioner along with Opposite Party No.4 while so continuing on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 26.07.1993, 19 posts of Asst. Librarian were created vide O.O. No.6594 dtd.05.08.1993.

4.2. It is contended that on the face of such continuance on daily wages basis and on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 26.07.1993 with due creation of 19 posts of Asst. Librarian vide order dtd.05.08.1993, when Petitioner nor Opposite Party No.4 were regularized, both of them along with two (2) others approached the Tribunal in O.A No.340 of 1994, seeking regularization of their services. The Tribunal disposed of O.A. No.340 of 1994 along with other batch of OAs vide order dtd.16.05.2000 inter alia directing the authorities to regularize the services of the applicants therein, if the performance is satisfactory under Annexure-4.

4.3. It is contended that in terms of the order so passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-4, the Committee so constituted in its proceeding dtd.25.08.2000 under Annexure-5 took the following decision:-

“The Committee considered the following ad hoc DLR cases in different categories as per their performances and roster points of reservation for appointments to the posts of Asst. Librarians. The performances of all the ad hoc/DLR employees were evaluated by the Committee with reference to the reports and recommendations of the Librarian of H.K.M State Library.

Since no S.T. candidate is available, it is recommended that Smt. Manjurani Muduli will