Entitlement to Regularization of Services for Employees Consistently Discharging Duties Against Sanctioned Posts

The applicant, Haribandhu Paikaray, was employed as a Bus Driver at the National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), Bhubaneswar

He filed an Original Application (OA) seeking regularization of his services in the sanctioned post of Bus Driver and a direction to the respondents to refrain from filling the post through outsourcing

The respondents contested the prayer, and the applicant filed a rejoinder

The Tribunal noted that the facts were nearly identical to those in Rama Chandra Pradhan v. UOI & Ors. (OA No. 88/2022), though the record was unclear regarding the applicant's current employment status post-March 1, 2022

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the regularization of his services in the sanctioned post of Bus Driver under the respondents

2. Whether the respondents should be restrained from filling the post of Bus Driver through outsourcing

The Tribunal applied the principles of service law regarding the regularization of long-term temporary or contractual employees. It relied heavily on recent Supreme Court precedents that mandate regularization under specific conditions to avoid exploitative labor practices, specifically citing Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors. (2024), Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025), and Dharam Singh & Ors v. State of U.P (2025)

It further observed the principles established in Chander Mohan Negi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) and the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal in Manoranjan Nayak regarding the continuity of service and the right to be considered for permanent absorption

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s situation was analogous to the case of Rama Chandra Pradhan

It reasoned that if an employee continues to discharge duties against a sanctioned post for a significant duration under the original terms of engagement, the "balance tilts in favor of the applicant for regularization"

The bench determined that the legal framework established by the cited Supreme Court decisions (such as Jaggo and Prem Chand) requires the employer to stabilize the tenure of such workers rather than replacing them with outsourced staff

However, the court identified a factual gap regarding whether the applicant was still actively serving after March 2022; it concluded that if he is indeed still performing those duties, the mandate for regularization must be followed

The respondents must issue the consequential order in favor of the applicant, following the principles set out in the cited Supreme Court judgments, within 90 days of receiving the order

The OA was allowed, and all pending MAs were disposed of