A public employer is mandatorily required to implement and give effect to its own subsisting administrative orders that grant service-related benefits or weightage to contractual employees, provided such orders remain valid and have not been formally revoked or modified.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“a) Call for the records from the Respondent;

b) Issue a writ or order directing the Respondent to extend service weightage to the Petitioner in accordance with the Order dated 07.06.2023 bearing No.MaNiMa 03 Adabi 07/349 (Annexure-V) as well as the Government Orders dated 12.11.2009 bearing No.FEE 2 EPC 2008 (Annexure-F) and Government Order dated 23.04.2014 bearing No.AaPaJe 195 EPC 2012 (Annexure-N) and consequently appoint / regularize / absorb him to the post of Assistant Environmental Officer along with all consequential benefits, from due date, in the interest of justice and equity;

c) Pass any other Order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Environmental Officer in the year 1997 and since his request for extending service weightage in terms of the government order at Annexure – F dated 12.11.2009 and government order at Annexure – N dated 23.04.2024 was not accepted by the respondent – Board, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.4630/2011, which was disposed of vide final order at Annexure – H dated 30.03.2011 as hereunder:

“ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the petition is disposed of finally.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents who had sought to file statement of objections have not done so. In any event having regard to the relief sought, statement of objections are nor warranted.

4. The petitioner claim to have rendered more than thirteen years of service as a contract employee. He is a holder of B.E. Degree in Civil Engineering. He was appointed as Civil Engineer in the first respondent Board on contract basis for a period of three months. Thereafter, he has been continued in the cadre of Civil Engineer. Which was re – designated as Assistant Environmental Officer from time to time by issuing fresh orders without any break. The last such extension was upto 31.03.2011. It is the petitioner’s claim that more than sixty employees are working on such basis since the year 1997 in various cadres including the petitioner. The petitioner had made representations along with others requesting to enhance the basis pay and regularise their service as their services were required and their appointment were against substantive vacancies. The respondents have undertaken performance review committee meetings from time to time to assess the continued performance of the petitioner and other an their services have been found satisfactory at al times. Which is why they have been continue in service. It is in that background that representations was made to regularise the services of the petitioner in line with the directions issued by the Apex Court in UMA DEVI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [2006(4)] SCC 1] since the petitioner claims that he satisfies the following conditions namely, that his appointment was against substantive vacancy. Secondly he is qualified to be appointed to the post. Thirdly, he has completed more that ten years in that cadre and continued to work and that his services have not been continued on contract basis by virtue of interim order granted by this Court or any other Court