Regularization of service is permissible for employees with long-term engagement despite irregular appointments, emphasizing the distinction between illegality and irregularity under established jurisprudence.

ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Mr Justice Rameshwar Vyas

Being aggrieved with Office Order dated 20.05.2016 (Annex. A/1) whereby the representation dated 25.04.2016 seeking regularization of service, filed in reference to liberty granted by this tribunal in OA No. 320/2015 to the applicant was rejected, the applicant has preferred this OA seeking direction against the respondents to regularize his services on the post of Helper Cook w.e.f. 07.07.1997.

2. The facts necessary to adjudicate this OA are as under:-

2.1 The applicant initially joined the respondents temporarily on the post of Mess Helper on 01.05.1992. His name was approved by Vidyalaya appointing-sub-committee after interviewing him on 23.04.1992 for the post of Helper (Cook) SC Category as is evident from letter dated 01.05.1992 (Annex. A/5) written to the Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti [hereinafter referred to as the Samiti] Jaipur-302015. After one month of his joining duties, his services were discontinued.

2.2 It is not in dispute that on 07.07.1997, he was again allowed to resume duty. He worked till 14.03.1998 when he was orally denied to work. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicant raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Sriganganagar. As per award dated 13.08.2002 (Annex. A/6) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Sriganganagar, the applicant worked for more than 240 days but his services were terminated without notice or compensation in lieu of notice. The Industrial Tribunal finding the retrenchment in violation of Section 25 (g) (h) of the Industrial Disputes Act directed the respondents to reinstate him immediately with further direction that his services shall be considered in continuity.

2.3 In the year 2011, the applicant preferred a S.B.C.W.P. No. 8569/2011 before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court against the non-regularization of his services by the respondents. After objection raised with regard to the jurisdiction, Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 16.05.2012 writ petition was transferred to this tribunal and registered as TA No. 02/2012. On 04.01.2013, counsel for the applicant was directed to file an extra set of the OA within three weeks. Since the applicant failed to comply with the order in extended time also, this tribunal vide order dated 08.07.2014 dismissed the TA No. 02/2012 for non- compliance of the order dated 04.01.2013.

2.4 Record reveals that the applicant in the year 2015 filed another OA No. 320/2015 seeking regularization. That OA was disposed of by this tribunal at imtial stage on 05.04.2016 with following directions:

“Heard. The case of the applicant is that he has put in more than 23 years with the respondent department. Therefore, since the applicant has put more than 23 years of service, the respondents needs to examine whether to regularize him or not in view of the Uma Devi’s judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court. We allow the applicant to file a fresh representation within one month, which shall be considered within one more month and appropriate orders be passed in terms of the Uma Devi’s judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in letter and spirit.

The OA is thus allowed to this limited extent. Accordingly, the MA is also disposed of. No costs.”

2.5 In view of the liberty granted to the applicant, the applicant preferred representation dated 25.04.2016 (Annex. A/4) seeking his regularization on the basis of his regular service in the Samiti. Vide Office Order dated 20.05.2016 (Annex. A/1), the respondent No. 2 rejected the representation of the a