Employment rights cannot be denied based on temporary status when similarly situated individuals have been granted permanent positions, violating the principle of equality under Article 14.

ORDER :

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the Opposite Party No.3, inter-alia, treating the Petitioner as contractual employee and thereby, to discontinue the operation of GPF account. The Petition calls into question the action of Opposite Parties in not regularising the post of the Petitioner even though similarly situated persons have been extended the aforesaid benefit.

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the substratum of matter presented before this court remain that the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1993 against a sanctioned vacancy of Peon on ad-hoc basis for a period of 44 days with the scale of pay of Rs.750-12-870/-. He was appointed as Peon against the vacancy which had arisen due to promotion of one Lushee Murmu the post of Daftary.

4. The petitioner approached the learned Tribunal in OA No.2971(C) of 2006 seeking regularization of his service citing regularization of one Bankia Behera whose name finds place on Sl. No.6 of the minutes of Selection Committee dated 05.04.1991. The OA No. 2971(C) of 2006 filed by the Petitioner was disposed vide order dated 14.03.2011 inter alia directing to consider the case of Petitioner for regularization in accordance to Finance Department resolution dated 15.05.1997.

5. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.1 passed the Order of regularization on 24.02.2015 after dismissal of SLP No.27340 of 2013 filed by the State. After regularization, GPF Account was allotted to the Petitioner along with others. The applicant was allotted with GPF Account No. GAO62466. However, subsequently, the Petitioner vide letter dated 06.11.2015 was intimated about the discontinuance of GPF account on the grounds that the Petitioner along with others were appointed on a contractual basis.

II. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

6. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was appointed against sanctioned vacancy and stands in a similar footing to Sri Bankia Behera as in SLP No.27340/2013. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to get all benefits as has been granted in all other similarly situated persons like Bankia Behera.

7. Furthermore, it is contended by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the judgment of Moti Dei v. State of Odisha, is not at all applicable to the case at hand. Because, it is a categorical finding that the Petitioner’s (Moti Dei) continuance in service was beyond rules and also the Petitioner's post (in Moti Dei's Case) was not sanctioned by the Higher Authority. In the present case, the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1993 against sanctioned vacancy and after long legal battle and, in the year 2014, the Petitioner was regularised in service.

III. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

8. Per contra, it is contended by Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties/State that the Petitioner was appointed temporarily as Peon for 44 days from the date of joining without any regular recruitment process and was not appointed on an ad-hoc basis. Moreover, the Petitioner’s name does not find place in the minutes of Selection Committee meeting dated 05.04.1991 and hence, he has not come through the regular recruitment process.

IV. COURT’S ANALYSIS AND REASONS

9. On perusal of the above-mentioned pleadings, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner is similarly situated as Bankia Behera in O.A No.909 (C) of 2006. Moreover, the Petitioner had been discharging his duties in the post of Peon since 1993 and the said post was a substantive vacant post due