The facts of the case are such that the petitioner had joined as ‘Khalalsi’ on 1st March 1989 under the provision of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme (in short ‘R.A.S.’) under work charged establishment instead of regular establishment. He had submitted several representations to the authorities to bring him over to the regular establishment but his applications were rejected by the authorities till the date of his retirement on 30th June 2016. Since till the time of retirement, the service of the Petitioner was not regularized, he had been denied pensionary and other retiral benefits by his employer. The petitioner pleaded sheer negligence and latches on the part of the authorities for not being given an appointment in the regular establishment.

The petitioner contended that he was not given an appointment in the regular establishment, although there were vacancies and he had the requisite qualification for the post.The opposite parties claimed that the petitioner had not rendered ten years under work charged establishment, making himineligible for absorption in the regular establishment. The opposite parties further contended that the work charged establishment is not pensionable service as per Rule-18(2)(ii) of OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992.

Citing the order of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Nandi v. State of Odisha and others 2014 (1) OLR 734, the Court said that Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, the question of his regularization against the regular post does not arise for consideration in the present writ petition and since the benefits have been granted to other similarly placed work charged employees, the same should be extended to the petitioner. Replying to the Opposite Parties’ contention regarding the clause on the completion of 10 years, the Court said the irregular delay in bringing the petitioner to the regular establishment was unjust. Following the principle laid down in Narusu Pradhan v. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the state cannot stand contrary to it.

The facts of the case are such that the Petitioner has been engaged by Sailabala Women’s College, Cuttack on an Adhoc basis against a class VI post of the college for a meagre salary. Despite assurances, his services had neither been regularized nor had he been absorbed against an existing vacancy in any of the Class VI posts stated to have been lying vacant in the College. Petitioner has sought for a direction to the Opposite Parties to regularize his services in any suitable Class-IV post, at the said college, the denial of which had been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as by this Court in a catena of judgments. Instead of regularizing the services of the Petitioner, the College Authorities are utilizing the services of the petitioner as Gardener, watchman, Night watchman along with duties like seat arrangements for interviews, e-admissions, annual athletic meet, etc. for a paltry sum as remuneration and have not consideredhis absorption against existing vacancies in any of the Class III-IV posts.

Referring to the case of Uma Devi which the Court had used to regularize services of the Adhoc/ temporary/ daily wage employees, the Bench reminded the authorities of their constitutional obligations. As a part of the judgment, the direction was given to the State Government and its instrumentalities to constitute a screening committee and to regularize the services of the persons who have been appointed irregularly and rendered more than 10 years of service uninterruptedly. Reviewing the submissions of the opposition, the Petitioner’s initial appointment was only irregular and not illegal as revealed from the records of the case, and sanctioned posts in Class IV are lying vacant in the college. The Court thus ordered the Opp. Parties to carry out the exercise as mandated in Uma Devi’s case, temporary and Adhoc employees working in the college be prepared and based on their seniority and keeping in view the vacant posts available to be filled up. A time frame of 3 months was attached for this regularization of the service, along with the payment of legitimate dues.