Orissa High Court Orders Regularization of SAI Junior Accountants After Nearly Three Decades of Service
In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has directed the Sports Authority of India (SAI) to regularize the services of two junior accountants who have been in continuous employment for nearly 29 years. The court held that their case falls squarely within the protective principles established by the Supreme Court of India, emphasizing their long-standing service tenure.
Court Overturns CAT Order, Sets Three-Month Deadline
A division bench comprising Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Das recently set aside the July 25, 2024, order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack bench. The tribunal had previously rejected the regularization plea filed by Prasanta Kumar Das and Surit Kumar Nayak. The high court termed the tribunal's decision as unsustainable in the eye of law and issued clear directives to SAI authorities.
The bench mandated that the regularization process must be completed within three months. Additionally, it ordered that a compliance report be submitted to the registrar general within one week after the regularization. The court warned that failure to adhere to these directives would result in contempt proceedings being initiated against the responsible authorities.
Long Service History and Legal Arguments
The petitioners were initially engaged in 1993 and, except for a brief one-day artificial break until 1995, have served continuously without any interruption. In its January 19 order, the high court noted the undisputed fact that the petitioners have worked continuously for more than 29 years. They argued that despite making repeated representations to the competent authority—the deputy director of SAI at the Water Sports Centre, National Centre of Excellence (NCOE) in Cuttack—their cases were never considered for regularization.
The petitioners also contended that although circulars were issued for holding limited departmental competitive examinations, they were not given the opportunity to participate or be considered. Representing the petitioners, advocate Jitendra Kumar Lenka presented their case before the court.
SAI's Opposition and Court's Observations
Opposing the plea, advocate Lalitendu Mishra, representing the director general of SAI, argued that the petitioners were never appointed against sanctioned posts and had not cleared the limited departmental examination. However, after a thorough examination of the records, the high court observed that the petitioners had indeed been extended various service benefits over the years.
These benefits included pay revisions under the 5th and 6th Central Pay Commissions, which indicated a level of formal recognition of their service. The bench firmly held that the petitioners cannot be excluded from the protective sweep of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. It further observed that their long, continuous, and uninterrupted service of over 29 years unmistakably brings their case within the parameters established for consideration of regularization.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of long-serving employees and ensuring that administrative bodies adhere to principles of fairness and justice in employment matters.
