The court emphasized that rights to regularization must not be undermined by interim orders, as continuous service in a permanent role bears entitlement to regularization under fair labor practices.

JUDGMENT :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the impugned order dated 04.08.2021, so issued under Annexure-11 by Opp. Party No.1. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services, has been rejected inter alia on the ground that since petitioners continued in their services because of the interim order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.4031(C) of 1997 and 3469(C) of 1997, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC-1 , petitioners are not eligible to get the benefit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners were engaged as against the post of Peon on 44 days basis vide order of appointment issued on 22.02.1996 and 22.01.1996 under Annexure-1 series. It is contended that such order of appointment issued under Annexure-1 series was extended from time to time.

3.1. On the face of such continuance, when they were not regularized, they approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.4031(C) of 1997 and 3469(C) of 1997. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.12.1997 and 28.01.1998 under Annexure-12 series, while admitting the matters passed the following interim order:-

“As regards the interim prayer not to terminate his services, in case he is working against a post which is earmarked for the category to which he belongs according to the model roster and his further continuance will not violate section 3(h) of the O.R.V. Act and there is necessity for manning the post, then he may be allowed to continue till 31.12.97. ”

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that interim order passed on 10.12.1997 and 28.01.1998 was further modified with passing of a fresh order on 04.08.1998 under Annexure-12 series and the said order reads as follows:-

“Heard. The interim order has expired on 30.06.98. Though there was a direction to list it before that date, the O.A. had not been listed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is still continuing and as such, an order may be passed for his further continuance. If the respondents have retained him after the period specified in the interim order of the Tribunal is over, then it is not clear why he wants a further order from the Tribunal for his continuance. Hence all that can be directed is that if the respondents are utilizing his services as on today as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant, then pendency of this application will not be a bar to let him continue subject to the following conditions:-

(i) There is necessity for manning the post and availability of funds. The ban order issued by the Finance Department should be kept in mind.

(ii) His continuance in that post will not violate Section 3(h) of the O.R.V. Act.

(iii) His continuance in that post will not come in the way of a regularly selected candidate being appointed against that vacancy.”

3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners taking into account the nature of order passed by the Tribunal initially on 10.12.1997 as well as 28.01.1998 and subsequently on 04.08.1998, contended that petitioners were never protected with any interim order and no order was passed by the tribunal directing the Opp. Parties to allow the petitioners to continue in their services. In the alternate, the Tribunal gave liberty to the Opp. Parties to continue with the services of the petitioners, if such continuance of the petitioners are required in the establishment in question.

3.4. It is further contended that the original applications so filed were disposed of along with a batch of original application vide order dated 05.04.2016 u