Facts
The applicant was initially engaged as a Junior Assistant at the National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), Bhubaneswar, through an outsourcing agency starting on 08.02.2017
Source reference: p. 1Subsequently, she was engaged by the department on a short-term contract basis with consolidated remuneration beginning 05.02.2019
Source reference: p. 1The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking regularization of her services.
Source reference: p. 1While the matter was heard, the record remained unclear as to whether she continued in service post-01.03.2022
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the applicant, having served on a short-term contract basis following a period of outsourced employment, is entitled to regularization of service
Source reference: p. 3-4Law Applied
Jaggo v. Union of India (2024) regarding the rights of long-term contractual employees
Source reference: p. 2Chander Mohan Negi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) and Prem Chand v. State of Punjab (2026) concerning the transition from temporary to permanent status
Source reference: p. 2, 4The decision in Manoranjan Nayak v. Union of India by the Full Bench of the Tribunal
Source reference: p. 4These cases collectively establish that where employees continue for extended periods on a contractual basis, the "balance tilts" in favor of regularization provided specific criteria are met
Source reference: p. 3-4Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the facts and legal issues in this case were identical or akin to those in Rama Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India (O.A. No. 88 of 2022)
Source reference: p. 3It determined that if the applicant had continued to discharge her duties up to the date of the judgment, the legal precedents cited by the applicant—specifically Jaggo, Shripal, and Dharam Singh—supported her claim for regularization
Source reference: p. 4The Bench reasoned that based on the detailed discussions in O.A. No. 88/2022, the applicant’s continued service created an entitlement for the respondents to formalize her employment status in line with modern judicial interpretations of fair labor practices in government service
Source reference: p. 3-4Holding
The Tribunal allowed the Original Application (OA). It held that if the applicant is still in service, she is entitled to regularization
The Respondents were directed to issue a consequential order in her favor, following the principles set out in the cited Supreme Court decisions, within 90 days of receiving the order. Any pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of accordingly
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
SMT ARUNA BEHERAvsNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FASHION TECHNOLOGY NEW DELHI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in