The regularization of long-serving contractual employees is mandated when their roles are inherently permanent, ensuring compliance with employment laws and protections against exploitation.

Judgment :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.25.03.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-24. Claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization being a contractual employee w.e.f.26.06.2007 was rejected on the ground that Petitioner was so appointed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Haridaspur-Paradeep Rail Link-Opp. Party No. 4, without following due procedure of law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the letter issued by Opp. Party No. 4 on 02.03.2006 under Annexure-1 and consequential letter issued by the Commerce & Transport Department, Govt. of Odisha on 27.05.2006 under Annexure-2, Opp. Party No. 4 vide his letter dtd.17.06.2006 under Annexure-3, recommended the claim of three (3) persons which includes the present Petitioner for engagement as contractual Amin in the office of Opp. Party No. 4. Such a recommendation was made basing on the notice issued by the said authority and with receipt of applications from various candidates including the Petitioner.

4.1. It is contended that recommendation made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer-Opp. Party No. 4 under Annexure-3 was accepted by the Govt. in the Commerce & Transport Department vide Annexure-4 letter dtd.05.05.2007 and basing on the letter issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 2, vide office order dtd.26.06.2007 under Annexure-5, Petitioner was appointed as a contractual Amin in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 4.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on such engagement on contractual basis vide order dtd.26.06.2007 under Annexure-5, Petitioner was not only allowed to continue as such but also his remuneration was enhanced from time to time as applicable to such contractual Amin vide order issued on 19.03.2010 under Annexure-6.

4.3. It is also contended that during continuance of the Petitioner various recommendations were made by Opp. Party No. 4 seeking regularization of the services of the Petitioner and it was indicated that vacancy has occurred due to retirement of an incumbent Amin. But no action was taken to regularize the services of the Petitioner basing on such recommendation and the stipulation contained in the G.A. Department Resolution dtd.17.09.2013 so issued under Annexure-10.

4.4. It is contended that on the face of such recommendation and the eligibility of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization in terms of G.A. Department Resolution dtd.17.09.2013, when no action was taken, Petitioner on compelling circumstances approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 6739 of 2021 with a prayer to direct Opp. Party No. 1 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization.

4.5. It is contended that vide order dtd.24.02.2021 under Annexure-23 this Court while disposing the writ petition, directed Opp. Party No. 1 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi , (2006) 4 SCC-1 and State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Keshari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 as well as G.A. Department Resolution issued on 17.09.2013. However, on the face of such direction issued by this Court, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.25.03.2022 under Annexure-24, only on the ground that Petitioner has been so appointed by Opp. Party No. 4 without following due procedure of law.

4.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner