Long-term, continuous service in sanctioned posts must be considered for regularisation as per judicial precedents, regardless of procedural irregularities.

Judgment :

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. By means of this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek interference of this Court with the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in T.A. No.260/00021 of 2014, rejecting their prayer for regularisation of service.

2. The claim of the Petitioners in the Writ Petition is that they were initially appointed as Junior Accountants against sanctioned posts and have continued to work without any break since 1995, though they had initially joined on 01.09.1993 and worked till October, 1995 with only a one-day artificial break. Despite repeated representations made by the Petitioners to the competent authority, namely, the Deputy Director, Sports Authority of India (SAI), Water Sports Centre, National Centre of Excellence (NCOE), Cuttack, their cases were never considered for regularisation. In the meantime, the Petitioners have completed nearly twenty-nine years of service.

It is further pleaded that although the employer issued circulars for holding Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations, the Petitioners were not considered. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.2401 of 2003, which was subsequently transferred to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, and registered as T.A. No.21 of 2014, seeking permission to appear in the Limited Departmental Examination and consideration of their cases for regularisation by granting due weightage to the experience gained by them.

The Petitioners further assert that during the course of their service they were granted normal annual increments and extended the benefits of the 5th and 6th Central Pay Commissions. However, on account of the pendency of litigation, they were denied the benefits flowing from the 7th Central Pay Commission, which came into force with effect from 01.01.2016.

It is further contended that one Kaushik Kumar Das, who was appointed subsequent to the Petitioners on a consolidated salary under conditions similar to those applicable to the Petitioners in 1993, was regularised as a Junior Accountant vide letter dated 03.02.1995, despite not having undergone any regular selection process or having appeared in the Limited Departmental Examination. Similarly, another individual, namely Kamakshya Prasad Dwibedi, was also appointed and regularised in a comparable manner, ignoring the claims of the Petitioners.

T.A. No.21 of 2014 was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 28.11.2019, directing regularisation of the Petitioners against Group-D posts under a misconception. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5861 of 2021, wherein liberty was granted to the Petitioners to approach the learned Tribunal afresh. Pursuant thereto, a fresh application was filed before the learned Tribunal, the order whereof is impugned herein.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners strenuously contended that their case squarely falls within the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inState of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari , (2010) 9 SCC 247 , Jaggo vs. Union of India,2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Dharam Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , 2025 INSC 998 and accordingly sought regularisation by setting aside the impugned order of the learned Tribunal.

4. Per contra, Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4, vehemently opposed the submissions and contended that the Petitioners were never appointed against sanctioned posts and, having failed to qualify the Limited Departmental Examination, are not entitled to claim regularisation under the principles enunciated in M.L. Kesari (supra), Dha