[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Nabin Chandra Mandal vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 7 April, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
             W.P.(C ) No.11917 of 2024

  In the matter of an application under Article-226 & 227 of
                   the Constitution of India
                          ..................

 Nabin Chandra Mandal                                             Petitioner
                                           ....

                                   -versus-


 State of Odisha & Others                  ....            Opposite Parties


                For Petitioner         :      M/s. C.R. Pattnaik, Adv.

                For Opp. Parties :             M/s. P.K. Panda
                                              Addl. Standing Counsel


PRESENT:

THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Date of Hearing: 05.03.2026 and Date of Judgment: 07.04.2026
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the

Petitioner inter alia challenging order dt.30.03.2024 so

passed by Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-12. Vide

the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit // 2 //

of regularization and consequential sanction of pension

and other pensionary benefits, as provided under OCS

(Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short, "1992 Rules") was

rejected.

2.1. While assailing the impugned order, learned

counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that

Petitioner entered into service as a Night Watchman on

DLR basis, w.e.f 07.11.1989 in the establishment of

Opp. Party No.2. Even though Petitioner on such

engagement as a DLR Night Watchman w.e.f 07.11.1989

continued as such and on the face of such continuance,

he was not regularized, Petitioner approached the State

Administrative Tribunal in OA. No.100 of 1998 seeking

regularisation of his service.

2.2. The Tribunal vide order dt.21.01.1998, when

directed Opp. Party No.5 to take a decision on the claim

of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization, Opp.

Party No.5 vide his letter dt.20.08.1998 under

Annexure-1, intimated the Petitioner that a Common

Identified list of DLR workers, engaged prior to

// 3 //

12.04.1993 will be prepared and follow-up action will be

taken in due course of time.

2.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

contended that there is no dispute that Petitioner's

initial engagement as a DLR is prior to the cut-off date

so fixed by the Finance Department in its Resolution

dt.15.05.1997 i.e 12.04.1993 and while implementing

the order passed by the Tribunal, Opp. Party No.5 vide

letter under Annexure-1 contended that a Common

Identified list of DLR workers will be prepared and from

out of the said list follow-up action will be taken in due

course of time. But in terms of the said letter, no action

was ever taken to absorb the Petitioner in the regular

establishment.

2.4. As per the stipulation contained in Finance

Department Resolution dt.15.05.1997 and the decision

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary,

State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi &

Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1, it is contended that by the

time Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the matter in the

// 4 //

case of Uma Devi Petitioner had already completed

10(ten) years of engagement as a DLR without being

protected by any interim order from any Court of law.

2.5. In view of the nature of order passed by the

Tribunal in O.A. No.100 of 1998 and the decision in the

case of Uma Devi, Petitioner should have been

regularized in his services. However, in order to

circumvent the decision in the case of Uma Devi and to

deprive the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization

and consequential release of pension and pensionary

benefits under the 1992 Rules, Petitioner was brought

over to the Work Charged establishment vide Officer

Order dt.15.01.2011 of Opp. Party No.5 under

Annexure-2.

2.6. It is contended that since employees working in the

Work Charged establishment are not eligible and

entitled to get the benefit of pension and pensionary

benefits under the 1992 Rules, Petitioner on being so

brought over to the Work Charged establishment, was

deprived to get the said benefit.

// 5 //

2.7. It is further contended that basing on the

communication issued by Opp. Party No.2 vide his letter

dt.27.08.2018 under Annexure-3, Petitioner was

brought over to the Regular/Wages establishment w.e.f

27.10.2018 vide Office order dt.14.11.2018 under

Annexure-4. But since Petitioner retired from his

services on attaining the age of superannuation on

31.10.2018, he was not sanctioned with pension and

other pensionary benefits on the ground that he was not

having the required qualifying service, as provided under

Rule-47(5)(i) of the Rules, 1992.

2.8. It is contended that Petitioner claiming the benefit

of pension and pensionary benefits under the 1992

Rules, when moved an application before Opp. Party

No.5 under Annexure-6 and the same was not

considered, Petitioner approached this Court by filing

W.P.(C ) No.22276 of 2019. This Court vide order

dt.20.11.2019, when directed for consideration of the

Petitioner's claim, the same was rejected vide the

impugned order dt.26.02.2020 under Annexure-10.

// 6 //

2.9. It is contended that such claim of the Petitioner

was rejected inter alia on the ground that as provided

under Rule-18(3) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992,

since the entire qualifying service of the Petitioner in the

Work Charged establishment and Regular establishment

comes to 7 years 9 months and 17 days and the same

being less than 10 years of qualifying service, Petitioner

is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit in terms of

Rule 47(5)(i). Rule 18(3) and Rule-47(5)(i) of the 1992

Rules reads as follows:

18(3). The appointing authority on receipt of Form 2 from the Accounts Officer under Sub-rule (2) shall address to the concerned Chief District Medical Officer in Form 3 where the applicant desire to be medically examined and forward to him the following documents:

(i)Form 2 with Part IV of that Form duly completed in original;

(ii)two copies of the applicant's photograph of which one shall be an attested copy;

(iii)a copy of Form 4 with a spare copy of Part III of that Form;

(iv)report or statement of the applicant's case if he has been granted invalid pension or has previously commuted a part of his pension or has been refused commutation on medical grounds.

xxx xxx xxx

47(5)(i) In the case of a Government Servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completion of the minimum qualifying

// 7 //

service of ten years shall not be entitled for pension, but he shall be entitled to service gratuity to be paid at a uniform rate of half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly period of service." (substituted vide Finance Department Notification No.24142/F, dtd.04.09.2015)

2.10. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

contended that since Petitioner continued as a DLR w.e.f

07.11.1989, in the Work Charged establishment w.e.f

15.01.2011 and in the Regular establishment w.e.f

27.10.2018 till he retired on 31.10.2018, rejection of the

Petitioner's claim to get the benefit of pension and

pensionary benefits, on the ground indicated in the

order dt.26.02.2020 under Annexure-10 is not

sustainable in the eye of law.

2.11. It is however contended that challenging order

dt.26.02.2020, Petitioner when approached this Court

by filing W.P.(C ) No.11241 of 2020, this Court vide

order dt.12.01.2024 under Annexure-11 directed to re-

consider the claim of the Petitioner, taking into account

the decision in the case of Abhay Charan Mohanty Vs.

State of Odisha, WPC (OAC) No.3494 of 2013 as well

as Narasu Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, W.P (C )

// 8 //

No.5377 of 2010. But without proper appreciation of

the said direction, Petitioner's claim was again rejected

vide the impugned order dt.30.03.2024 under

Annexure-12 of Opp. Party No.5.

2.12. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

contended that since claim of the Petitioner, so rejected

vide order dt.26.02.2020 under Annexure-10, was

interfered with by this Court in its order dt.12.01.2024

under Annexure-11, on the face of the order passed by

this Court, claim of the Petitioner could not have been

rejected on similar ground vide the impugned order

dt.30.03.2024 under Annexure-12.

2.13. It is further contended that since for the latches

of the Opp. Parties, Petitioner was deprived to get the

benefit of regularization, even though he continued as a

DLR w.e.f 07.11.1989, in terms of the decision of the

Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi so cited supra, for

such latches of the Opp. Parties, Petitioner cannot be

deprived from getting the benefit of pension and other

pensionary benefits under the 1992 Rules.

// 9 //

2.14. In support of his submission, reliance was

placed to a judgment of this Court passed on

07.03.2026 in the case of Kailash Chandra Panda

Vs. State of Odisha & Others, WP(C )Nos.248 & 289

of 2026. This Court in the aforesaid judgment in para-

7 to 7.3 has held as follows:

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this court finds that both the Petitioners which is not disputed are // 29 // Page 29 of 31 engaged as NMR/DLR prior to 12.04.1993 i.e. the cut-off date fixed by the Finance Department in its resolution dt.15.05.1997. However, it is found that on the face of such continuance as a NMR/DLR prior to 12.04.1993, Petitioners were never regularized on completion of the required tenure of engagement as NMR/DLR in terms of the resolution dt.15.05.1997.

7.1. Not only that, on the face of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi so cited supra, no step was taken to absorb the Petitioners in the regular establishment, who had completed more than 10 years of services without being protected by any interim order from any Court of law. But in order to circumvent the direction of the Apex Court, Petitioners were brought over to the workcharged establishment w.e.f 01.03.2009.

7.2. It is also found that both the Petitioners were brought over to the regular (wages) establishment, prior to their retirement and both of them retired on attaining the age of superannuation, but without having the // 30 // Page 30 of 31 required qualifying service to get the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits.

7.3. Placing reliance on the decisions so cited supra, this Court is of the view that Petitioner's claim is required to be considered by the Opp.

parties to get the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits under the Rules. For the admitted latches

// 10 //

on the part of the State authority in not absorbing the Petitioners on the face of such long continuance, Petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. This Court accordingly while disposing both the Writ Petitions, permits the Petitioners to make a detailed representation before Opp. Party No.1 claiming the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits as provided under the Rules.

3. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand

made his submission basing on the stand taken in the

counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that Petitioner

though was engaged as a DLR w.e.f 07.11.1989, but

pursuant to the decision taken by the Government, he

was brought over to the Work Charged establishment

vide order dt.15.01.2011 under Annexure-2. Such a

decision was taken, taking into account the

communication issued by the Government-Opp. party

No.1 on 06.01.2011 under Annexure-B/1.

3.1. It is further contended that while so continuing in

the Work Charged establishment, Petitioner vide order

dt.27.10.2018 under Annexure-D/1 was brought over to

the Regular establishment w.e.f 27.10.2018, and while

continuing as such in the Regular establishment,

// 11 //

Petitioner retired from his services on attaining the age

of superannuation on 31.10.2018,

3.2. It is contended that since Petitioner while

continuing in the Work Charged establishment w.e.f

15.01.2011 and in the Regular establishment w.e.f

14.11.2018, retired from his services w.e.f 31.10.2018,

as provided under Rule-18(3) of the 1992 Rules,

Petitioner does not have the required qualifying service

to get the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits.

3.3. It is also contended that since as provided under

Rule-47(5)(i) of the 1992 Rules, Petitioner does not have

the required 10 years of qualifying service, his claim was

initially rejected after due consideration vide order

dt.26.02.2020 under Annexure-10. Even though this

Court directed for re-consideration of the Petitioner's

claim vide order dt.12.01.2024 in W.P.(C ) No.11241 of

2020 under Annexure-11, but it was found that

Petitioner's claim is not covered as per the decision in

the case of Narasu Pradhan as well as Abhay Kumar

Mohanty.

// 12 //

3.4. It is contended that the aforesaid Narasu Pradhan

was initially engaged in the Work Charged

establishment and retired from his services, while

continuing in the said Work Charged establishment.

Whereas Narasu Pradhan continued in the Work

Charged establishment all through, Petitioner continued

as a DLR and thereafter in the Work Charged

establishment and lastly in the Regular establishment.

Hence, his claim is not covered by the decision in the

case of Narasu Pradhan.

3.5. It is also contended that the decision in the case of

Abhay Kumar Mohanty is also not applicable, as the

said matter in W.P.C(OAC) No.3494 of 2013 was

disposed of in the light of the decision in the case of

Narasu Pradhan. It is accordingly contended that

since Petitioner does not have the required qualifying

service, in terms of the provisions contained under Rule

18(3) vis-à-vis Rule-47(5)(i) of the 1992 Rules, no

illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned

order.

// 13 //

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

considering the submission made, this Court finds that

Petitioner continued in the establishment of Opp. party

No.2 as a DLR cum Night Watchman w.e.f 07.11.1989.

Even though pursuant to the order passed by the

Tribunal in O.A. No.100 of 1998, a decision was taken to

prepare a Common Identified list of DLRs engaged prior

to 12.04.1993 and to take follow-up action in due

course, but Petitioner in terms of the said order of the

Tribunal and the stipulation contained in the Resolution

dt.15.05.1997 and decision in the case of Uma Devi so

cited supra, was never absorbed in the Regular

establishment. Instead, vide Office order dt.15.01.2011

under Annexure-2, Petitioner was brought over to the

Work Charged establishment and thereafter, to the

Regular establishment w.e.f 27.10.2018 vide order

dt.14.11.2018 under Annexure-4.

4.1. Petitioner while so continuing in the Regular

establishment, retired from service on attaining the age

of superannuation on 31.10.2018, as found from

// 14 //

Annexure-5. Petitioner's claim to get the benefit of

pension and pensionary benefits has been rejected inter

alia on the ground of Petitioner does not have the

required qualifying service of 10 years, as provided

under Rule-47(5)(i) of the 1992 Rules.

4.2. This Court taking into account the fact that

Petitioner continued under the Opp. Parties as a DLR

w.e.f 07.11.1989, in the Work Charged establishment

w.e.f 15.01.2011 and in the Regular establishment w.e.f

27.10.2018, till he attained the age of superannuation

on 31.10.2018, is the view that the ground on which

Petitioner's claim has been rejected is not sustainable in

the eye of law.

4.3. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of

Kailash Chandra Panda and the decision in the case

of Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC-1, so followed in the case of

State of Karnatak vs. M.L. Keshari, (2010) 9 SCC

247, Amarkant Rai vs. State of Bihar & Others,

2015 (8) SCC 265 and Nihal Singh Vrs. State of

Punjab, 2013 (14) SCC 65, this Court is of the view that

// 15 //

Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of

minimum pension as provided under the 1992 Rules.

4.4. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi in Para-

44 has held as follows:-

"44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (Supra), and referred to in paragraph-

15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one- time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."

// 16 //

4.5. Similarly Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.L.

Keshari in Para- 8 and 13 has held as follows:-

"8. Umadevi (3) casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one- time measure. Umadevi (3) directed that such one- time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10-4-2006).

13. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of the respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs to be given, in view of Umadevi (3), is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should not undertake an exercise within six months, as a general one-time regularisation exercise, to find out whether there are daily- wage/casual/adhoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfil the requirements mentioned in para-53 of Umadevi (3). If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularised. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of Respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one-time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of para 53 of Umadevi (3), their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years' service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularisation in suitable lower posts."

// 17 //

4.6. In the case of Nihal Singh in Para-35 to 38, Apex

Court has held as follows:-

"35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor with reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining tin the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure of the executive government to apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State.

21. In the first instances, the petitioner and the other Election Commissioners were appointed when the work of the Commission did not warrant their appointment. The reason given by Respondent 1 (Union of India), that on account of the Constitution (61" Amendment) Act reducing the voting age and the Constitution (64th Amendment) and (65 Amendment) Bills relating to election to the Panchayats and Nagar Paliks, the work of the Commission was expected to increase and, therefore, there was need for more Election Commissioners, cuts notice. As has been pointed out by Respondent 2, the work relating to revision of electoral roll on account of the reduction of voting age was completed in all the States except Assam by the end of July 1989 itself, and at the Conference of the Chief Electoral Officers at Tirupati. Respondent 2 had declared that the entire preparatory work relating to the conduct of the then ensuing general elections to the Lok Sahba would be completed by August in the whole of the country except Assam. Further the Constitution (64th and 65th Amendment) Bills had already fallen in Parliament before the appointments. In fact, what was needed was more secretarial staff for which the Commission was pressing, and not more Election Commissioners. What instead was done was to appoint the petitioner and the other Election Commissioner on 16.01.1989. Admittedly, further the view of the Chief Election Commissioner were not ascertained before

// 18 //

making the said appointments. In fact, he was presented with them for the first time in the afternoon of the same day i.e, 16-10-1989.

36. The other factor which the State is required to keep in mind while creating or abolishing posts is the financial implications involved in such a decision. The creation of posts necessarily means additional financial burden on the exchequer of the State. Depending upon the priorities of the State, the allocation of the finance is no doubt exclusively within the domain of the legislature. However in the instant case creation of new posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the various banks at whose disposal the services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. If absorbing the appellants into the services of the State and providing benefits on a par with the police officers of similar rank employed by the State results in further financial commitment it is always open for the State to demand the banks to meet such additional burden. Apparently no such demand has ever been made by the State. The result is the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks.

37. We are of the opinion that neither the Governmnet of Punjab nor these public sector banks can continue such a practice consistent with their obligations to function in accordance with the Constitution. Umadevi (3) judgement cannot became a licence for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities.

38. For all the abovementioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to be absorbed in the services of the State. The appeal are accordingly allowed. The judgements under appeal are set aside."

4.7. In the case of Amarkanti Rai, Hon'ble Apex Court in

Para-8, 9, 11 to 14 has held as follows:-

"8. Insofar as contention of the respondent that the appointment of the appellant was made by the Principal who is not a competent authority to make such appointment and is in violation of the Bihar State Universities Act and hence the appointment is illegal

// 19 //

appointment, it is pertinent to note that the appointment of the appellant as night guard was done out of necessity and concern for the College. As noticed earlier, the Principal of the College vide letters dated 11-3-1988, 7-1-1993, 8-1-2002 and 12-7-2004 recommended the case of the appellant for regularisation on the post of night guard and the University was thus well acquainted with the appointment of the appellant by the then Principal even though the Principal was not a competent authority to make such appointments and thus the appointment of the appellant and other employees was brought to the notice of the University in 1988. In spite of that, the process for termination was initiated only in the year 2001 and the appellant was reinstated w.ef. 3-1-2002 and was removed from services finally in the year 2007. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, for a considerable time, the University never raised the issue that the appointment of the appellant by the Principal is ultra vires the rules of the BSU Act. Having regard to the various communications between the Principal and the University and also the educational authorities and the facts of the case, in our view, the appointment of the appellant cannot be termed to be illegal, but it can only be termed as irregular.

9. The Human Resources Development, Department of Bihar Government, vide its Letter dated 11-7-1989 intimated to the Registrar of all the Colleges that as per the settlement dated 26-4-1989 held between Bihar State University and College Employees' Federation and the Government it was agreed that the services of the employees working in the educational institutions on the basis of prescribed staffing pattern are to be regularised. As per sanctioned staffing partien, in Ramashray Baleshwar College, there were two vacant posts of Class IV employees and the appellant was appointed against the same. Further, Resolution No. 989 dated 10-5-1991 issued by the Human Resources Development Department provides that employee working up to 10-5-1986 shall be adjusted against the vacancies arising in future. Although, the appellant was appointed in 1983 temporarily on the post that was not sanctioned by the State Government, as per the above communication of the Human Resources Development Department, it is evident that the State Government issued orders to regularise the services of the employees who worked up to 10-5-1986. In our considered view, the High Court ought to have examined the case of the appellant in the light of the various communications issued by the State Government and in the light of the circular, the appellant is eligible for consideration for regularisation.


                       // 20 //




            XXX            XXX           XXX

11. Elaboration upon the principles laid down in Umadevi (3) Case and explaining the difference between irregular and illegal appointments in State of Karnataka Vs. M.L Kesari, this Court held as under (ML Kesari case SSC p 250, para 7) 7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularisation enunciated in Umadevi (3). if the following conditions are fulfilled:

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possesses the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal., But where the persons employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular."

12. Applying the ratio of Umadevi (3) case, this Court in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab directed the absorption of the Special Police Officers in the services of the State of holding as under: (Nihal Singh Case, SCC pp. 79-80, paras- 35-36) "35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor with reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would he arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State. 36. The other factor which the State is required to keep in mind while creating or abolishing posts is the financial implications involved in such a decision. The creation of posts necessarily means additional financial burden on the exchequer of the State. Depending upon the priorities of the State, the allocation of the finances is no doubt exclusively within the domain of the legislature. However in the instant case creation of new posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the Various banks at whose disposal the

// 21 //

services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. If absorbing the appellants into the services of the State and providing benefits on a par with the police officers of similar rank employed by the State results in the banks to meet such additional burden Apparently no such demand has ever been made by the State. The result is the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks

13. In our view, the exception carved out in para 53 of Umadevi (3)3 is applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no material placed on record by the respondents that the appellant has been lacking any qualification or bore any blemish record during his employment for over two decades. It is pertinent to note that services of similarly situated persons on daily wages for regularisation viz. one Yatindra Kumar Mishra who was appointed on daily wages on the post of Clerk was regularised w.e.f. 1987. The appellant although initially working against unsanctioned post, the appellant was working continuously since 3-1-2002 against sanctioned post. Since there is no material placed on record regarding the details whether any other night guard was appointed against the sanctioned post, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to award monetary benefits to be paid from 1.- 1-2010.

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant has served the University for more than 29. years of the post of night guard and that he has served the College on daily wages, in the interest of justice, the authorities are directed to regularise the services of the appellant retrospectively w.ef. 3-1-2002 (the date on which he rejoined the post as per the direction of the Registrar)."

4.8. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned

order dt.30.03.2024, so passed by Opp. party No.5

under Annexure-12, directs Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2 to

extend the benefit of minimum pension in favour of the

Petitioner, as due and admissible from the date of his

entitlement. This Court also directs Opp. Party No.1 & 2

// 22 //

to release the arrear entitlement, after such sanction of

minimum pension in favour of the Petitioner. This

Court directs Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2 to complete the

entire exercise within a period of 4(four) months from

the date of receipt of this order.