The court ruled that a long-term employee in a Work Charged Establishment is eligible for regularization and pension benefits if similar past claims were upheld, despite prior procedural lapses.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

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

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the claim of the Petitioner to treat him as a regular employee and thereby extending him with the benefit of pension as provided under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide order dt.29.06.2022 under Annexure-9 by Opp. Party No.1.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and after facing the required interview was appointed as an Amin in the Work Charged Establishment vide order of appointment issued on 19.09.1979 under Annexure-1. Petitioner joined in the work charged establishment in terms of the order issued under Annexure-1 on 19.09.1979 itself.

3.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner continued in the work charged establishment w.e.f 19.09.1979, but at no point of time, Petitioner was absorbed in the regular establishment in terms of the office Memorandum issued by the Finance Department on 06.03.1990 under Annexure-5 and resolution dt.15.05.1997 issued by the self-same Finance Department under Annexure-6.

3.2. It is contended that by the time resolution dt.15.05.1997 was issued under Anenxure-6, Petitioner had already completed more than 10 years of engagement in the Work Charged establishment and accordingly he was otherwise eligible to get the benefit of absorption in the regular establishment. However, on the face of such resolution issued under Annexures-5 & 6, Petitioner was never absorbed in the Work Charged establishment. It is also contended that on the face of such long continuance in the Work Charged establishment, Petitioner’s claim for regularization was also not considered in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi & Others. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi in Para-44 has held as follows:-

“44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (Supra), and referred to in paragraph-15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one- time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”

3.3. It is contended that on the face of such long continuance in the Work Charged establishment, Petitioner when was not regularized, he moved the Tribunal seeking his absorption in the regular establishment in OA No.3