ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner with following prayer:-

"It is prayed that writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ order or direction, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 02.03.2020 by which services of the petitioner has been terminated, further direct to respondent to provide the salary for the period petitioner has worked in the department and direct the respondents to provide minimum salary to the petitioner which is being paid to other employees working on the same post and also consider the case of petitioner for regularization of his services.

Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper also be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon judgment in case of Pawan Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 156 submits that the present petitioner was appointed on contract basis on 01/10/2004 and since then he worked in the respondent organization. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed on post of Computer Operator and when the respondents tried to disturb his services, he has filed a S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7123 of 2010 and by order dated 10/04/2012, the respondents were directed to re-engage the petitioner. He also submits that despite a stay order and direction, the services of the petitioner were discontinued on 02/03/2020. He also submits that the petitioner has served more than 10 years and he is eligible for regularization.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondents and he submitted that the petitioner may submit a representation which shall be considered by the respondents.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgment as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 01/10/2004 as Computer Operator, (man with machine). In year 2010, due to certain disturbance and to adjust Mohanlal Yadav in place of the petitioner, the aggrieved petitioner has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7123/2010, which was disposed by a Coordinate Bench on 10.04.2012 with following order:-

"It is not in dispute that petitioner's employment was on specific terms and conditions on contractual basis. However, his appointment remained in operation till the year 2010. It is vide order dated 13.4.2010 (Annx.11) that new incumbent was appointed on contractual basis. In the aforesaid background, it remains nothing but a case of replacement of contractual employee by another set of contractual employee, which is impermissible in view of catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court. In fact, a contractual or temporary employee can be replaced by regularly selected candidate only. In view of aforesaid, discontinuation of petitioner is illegal rather, his replacement, by another set of contractual employee goes against verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

In the aforesaid background, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents that if they are in need of Computer Operator with Computer, then petitioner be reengaged. In any case, respondents are restrained to engage any person on contractual basis unless petitioner is given preference for his contractual employment. Respondents would, however, be at liberty to make regular appointment and petitioner may also compete, if eligible with other candidates. Stay application is also disposed of."

6. The petitioner has claimed that in garb of circular dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Department of Finance, the services were removed but vide order dated 03.11.2018 in second stay application in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9992/2018, the termination was stayed. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9992/2018 was considered on 18.11.2020 and the petitioner