A contractual appointment cannot preclude an eligible employee from being promoted to a regular cadre post if they meet the qualifications and service requirements, ensuring compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of this Intra-Court Appeal, the Government and its functionaries lay a challenge to the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.21977 of 2014, wherein the learned Court having favoured the prayer of the Writ Petitioner ordered as follows:-

“10. It is stated at the bar that the petitioner has in the meantime retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, having held as above, the only relief that can be granted at this stage to the petitioner is by directing the concerned authority to pay her the regular scale of the pay from date she was entitled to hold the same on regular basis till the date of her retirement.

11. The writ application is disposed of directing the Opposite Party No. l and 2 to pass necessary orders to grant regular salary to the petitioner in the scale of pay of Rs. 9,300/- 34,800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- with all subsequent pay revision as may have occurred from the date she was appointed as Anganwadi Supervisor on contractual basis till the date of her retirement. Such payment shall obviously be made by deducting the amount paid to her towards contractual remuneration. Since the petitioner has already retired, necessary orders shall be passed within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.”

2. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Jee, learned counsel for the Appellants, contended that the learned Single Judge has misconstrued the factual matrix as well as the applicable statutory framework and has thereby erroneously directed grant of promotion with consequential benefits to the Respondent. Referring to the Notification No.23230-V- JCDS-II-33/2006/WCD dated 08.10.2007, whereby the Orissa Children’s and Women’s Welfare Service Rules, 1989 were amended, it was submitted that the method of recruitment to the Junior Grade Service, along with the prescribed eligibility criteria, has not been correctly appreciated. According to him, the said Rules govern appointments to regular cadre posts and cannot be extended to appointments made against posts specifically created on a contractual basis under a distinct scheme. He further argued that the Government had, by executive instructions, created posts of Anganwadi Supervisor to be filled on contractual basis with consolidated remuneration, and the Respondent, having voluntarily accepted such engagement and having furnished an undertaking not to claim regular status, cannot subsequently seek parity with employees appointed against regular vacancies. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this fundamental distinction between contractual engagement and regular appointment and thereby erred in treating the Respondent at par with regularly promoted Supervisors. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Smt. Kausalya Pradhan vs. State of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.3321 of 2011, as confirmed in W.A. No.559 of 2016, wherein similar relief was declined, to contend that the impugned order in the present case is unsustainable and warrants interference.

3. Mr. S.S. Das, learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellants. He submitted that the Respondent, having entered service as an Anganwadi Worker in the year 1983 and having acquired gradua