Cuttack: The Orissa high court has directed the Sports Authority of India (SAI) to regularise the services of two junior accountants who have been in continuous employment for nearly 29 years, holding that they fall within the “protective sweep of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court”.A division bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Das recently set aside the July 25, 2024, order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack bench, which had rejected the regularisation plea of Prasanta Kumar Das and Surit Kumar Nayak. Terming the tribunal’s order “unsustainable in the eye of law”, the bench directed SAI authorities to carry out the regularisation within three months. It also directed that a compliance report be filed before the registrar general within one week thereafter, warning that failure would invite contempt proceedings.The petitioners were initially engaged in 1993 and, except for a “one-day artificial break” till 1995, have continued in service without interruption. In the Jan 19 order, the high court noted the “undisputed position that the petitioners were engaged with effect from the year 1993” and have worked “continuously for more than 29 years”.The petitioners argued that despite repeated representations to the competent authority — the deputy director of SAI, Water Sports Centre, National Centre of Excellence (NCOE), Cuttack — their cases were never considered for regularisation. They also contended that although circulars were issued for holding limited departmental competitive examinations, they were not considered.Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Jitendra Kumar Lenka made submissions on behalf of the petitioners. 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 examining the record, the high court observed that the petitioners were extended service benefits, including pay revisions under the 5th and 6th Central Pay Commissions. The bench held that the petitioners “cannot be excluded from the protective sweep of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court”.The court further observed that “the long, continuous and uninterrupted service rendered by the petitioners for over 29 years unmistakably brings their case within the parameters laid down for consideration of regularisation”.
