Contractual employees continuing in service under similar conditions are entitled to regularization based on established judicial precedents.

The applicant was initially engaged as a Junior Assistant at NIFT, Bhubaneswar through an outsourcing agency starting April 1, 2016

On February 5, 2019, he was transitioned to a short-term contract basis on a consolidated remuneration by NIFT to discharge duties as a Lab Assistant-cum-Junior Assistant

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking regularization of his services.

The Tribunal noted that the facts and issues were substantially similar to a previous case, Rama Chandra Pradhan v. UOI & Ors. (OA No. 88/2022)

1. Whether the applicant, having served on a short-term contract basis following an outsourcing stint, is entitled to regularization of service based on established judicial precedents

2. Whether the continued service of the applicant (pending verification of his status after March 1, 2022) entitles him to the same relief granted in similar matters such as OA No. 88/2022

The Tribunal applied the principles regarding the regularization of contractual and ad-hoc employees established by the Supreme Court in Chander Mohan Negi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020), Jaggo v. Union of India (2024), and Prem Chand v. State of Punjab (2026).

It further relied on Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025) and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) which underscore the rights of long-term contract workers.

The Tribunal also adhered to the Full Bench decision of the CAT in Manoranjan Nayak concerning the procedural aspects of regularization.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s situation was "same/similar/akin" to the case of Rama Chandra Pradhan

It reasoned that if the applicant had continued to discharge his duties without interruption beyond March 1, 2022, the "balance tilts in favour of the applicant for regularization"

The court examined the trajectory of the applicant’s employment—from outsourced staff to a direct short-term contract—and determined that such a work profile, when viewed through the lens of recent Supreme Court rulings like Jaggo and Prem Chand, warrants a direction for the respondents to formalize the employment status

The Tribunal emphasized consistency in judicial determination for similarly situated employees

The Respondents were directed to issue consequential orders for regularization in favor of the applicant, following the principles set out in the cited Supreme Court precedents, within 90 days of receiving the order

All pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly