Regularization of service must follow the specific terms of appointment and relevant regulations, which stipulate that regularization is prospective, creating distinctions between contractual and regular employees' rights.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. In this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners assail the order dated 13.05.2020 at Annexure-4 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (herein after referred to as “CAT”) whereby Original Application bearing Number O.A. No. 260/00510/2019 filed by the petitioners, application has been dismissed, rejecting the petitioners‟ prayer for regularization of their services from the date of completion of five years of continuous service under the Opp. Party No. 2 establishment (NHAI).

The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayer:

“i) Admit the writ application.

ii) Call for the record.

iii) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 13.05.2020 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 260/510 of 2019 under Annexure-4 shall not be quashed.

iv) If the opposite parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the order dated 13.05.2020 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 260/510 of 2019 under Annexure-4.

v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs directing the opposite party No.2 to regularize the services of the petitioners on completion of five years of continuous service in NHAI from the date of their respective initial appointment along with all consequential service benefits including promotion to the post of Manager (F&A) at par with six numbers of employees who were appointed in the year 1999 and got promotion w.e.f. May 2012.”

2. At this juncture it may be noted that the petitioners by filing the aforesaid OA No. 260/00510/2019 before learned CAT, challenged the action of the Opp. Parties/NHAI regularizing their service prospectively w.e.f. 1^st June, 2018 instead of regularizing them from the date of completion of five years of service in the post of Jr. Accounts Officer w.e.f. 2005.

2-A. The preliminary ground of challenge to the order of the Learned Tribunal rests upon the argument that even though the similarly circumstanced employees who were appointed in the year 1999 on contractual basis like the petitioners were regularised in the normal course whereas the petitioners continued on contract basis till 2018 when their services were regularised. Accordingly, the petitioners have claimed regularisation and promotion with retrospective effect at par with the other appointees who were allegedly similarly placed.

3. Heard Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. P. K. Parhi, DSGI for UOI, Mr. Abhay Kumar Behera and Mr. Durga Prasad Nanda, Sr. Advocates appearing along with Ms. Payal Roy, Adv for NHAI, Mr. Manoj Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Tanmay Mishra Advocate for Opposite Party Nos.3 to 15 and Mr. S. K. Ojha, advocate for Opposite Party Nos.16 to 24.

4. Before adverting to the rival submissions made by the learned counsels, it is apt to note the facts germane for just adjudication, which runs thus:-

4-A. The Opp. Party-NHAI had issued advertisement on 16.07.1997 (Annexure-1 of the Counter filed by the NHAI before CAT) for recruitment of 3 nos. of Accountants and such advertisement was finalised and however the appointment orders were issued in favour of 7 persons for appointment as Accountant on regular basis as per designated pay scale, based on the interview held on 15.02.1999 to meet immediate requirement of NHAI vis-a-vis the accountants. Thereafter, the appoin