JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - Petitioner files this writ petition while seeking quashing of the order passed by the opposite party no.1 vide Annexure-9 and also the order at Annexure-11 also seeks declaring the format of model form for written undertaking of the employees appearing at Annexure-13 and also to give a direction to the opposite parties to regularize the services of the petitioner as Junior Engineer with effect from his date of initial appointment as well as to pay the petitioner the scale of pay that was provided to him while continuing as Junior Engineer following the direction of this Court vide Annexure-14 and further also interfering in the order at Annexure-15 and thereby directing the opposite parties to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from 13.8.1998 in place of 8.1.2012 as has been done vide Annexure-15. 2. Short background involving the case is that petitioner acquired diploma in engineering from Bhubanananda School of Engineering in the year 1993. He enrolled his name with the State Government in the National Highway Department and empanelled his name as engineering personnel (Civil) for engagement following a guideline of the State Government that no Graduate Engineer or Diploma Engineer in Civil would be engaged under State Government or Government Undertaking without enrolled/listed with the State Government under the empanelment scheme. On 13.11.1997 petitioner's name was sponsored by opposite party no.1 for appointment as Junior Engineer temporarily under the opposite party no.2 following which opposite party no.3 issued appointment order under the direction of the Chairman of the Municipality on 9.12.1997. Petitioner was appointed for 44 days and also on contractual basis @ Rs.2,000/- per month. While the matter stood thus, the Municipal Council in its sitting No.8 dated 29.11.1997 approved vide Resolution No.14 the appointment of the petitioner on contractual basis for 44 days pursuant to which the appointment letter dated 13.11.1997 was issued to the petitioner. On completion of 44 days, service of the petitioner was extended by the Council in its meeting held on 31.1.1998 allowing him to continue for further 44 days vide Annexure-4. On completion of 44 days, service of the petitioner was extended by the Council in its meeting held on 31.1.1998 allowing him to continue for further 44 days vide Annexure-4. While the petitioner continuing as such, opposite party no.2 in its sitting No.17 dated 30.5.1995 vide Resolution No.9 as appearing at Annexure-5 decided to appoint the petitioner on ad-hoc basis again in terms of contractual basis in the scale of pay of Junior Engineer prescribed by the State Government till regular process of selection and appointment is made to the said post. Petitioner was consequently issued with appointment order dated 9.6.1998 prescribing the scale of pay for the post of Junior Engineer i.e. Rs.1400/- to Rs.2600/- but again on 44 days basis. Petitioner alleged that this appointment vide Annexure-6 remained contrary to the resolution vide Annexure-5. It is while the matter stood thus, Junior Engineers (Civil) who were working either in Municipality or Notified Area Council or under the Urban Local Bodies on ad-hoc/ILR//NMR and contractual basis were all regularized by opposite party no.1 vide order No.26613 dated 13.8.1998 vide Annexure-7. Petitioner alleged that even though he was appointed prior to this date, his case was not considered and the petitioner suffered for no timely recommendation of his case by the opposite party no.3 and petitioner thus contended that had the name of the petitioner being recommended timely, he could have been also regularized along with similarly situated persons, who have all been regularized by virtue of the direction in annexure-7. While the matter stood thus, opposite party no.1 issued letter dated 19.4.2000 addressed to the Revenue Divisional Commissioner and all Collectors by reprimanding the action of Councils of Urban Local Bodies for appointing temporary employees in violation to Section 73(A) of the Orissa Municipal Act and therefore, directed the Urban Local Bodies should be cautioned not to give promotion in violation of section 73(A) of the Act. In the meantime, petitioner came across a letter of the Under Secretary dated 1.6.2000 directing disengagement of the petitioner following the direction of opposite party no.1 dated 19.4.2000 and dated 1.6.2000 appearing at Annexures- 8 and9 respectively. However, petitioner was not relieved and was allowed to continue. In the meantime, petitioner came across a letter of the Under Secretary dated 1.6.2000 directing disengagement of the petitioner following the direction of opposite party no.1 dated 19.4.2000 and dated 1.6.2000 appearing at Annexures- 8 and9 respectively. However, petitioner was not relieved and was allowed to continue. The order at Annexure-9 being challenged in filing the present writ petition, in the counter it is surfaced that by further direction of the opposite party no.1 dated 3.12.2005, petitioner's service has been placed at the disposal of Notified Area Council, Pattamundai again intimating he petitioner therein to have been posted on contractual basis on consolidated salary of Rs.4,000/- against the existing vacancy appearing at Annexure-11. It is on receipt of such order, the opposite party no.2 relieved the petitioner on 7.1.2006 to enable the petitioner to join in his new place of posting , which fact was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no.25 dated 6.1.2006 appearing at Annexure-12. Petitioner on being relieved from Choudwar Municipality, submitted his joining report before the Chairman, Pattamundai Notified Area Council. It is at this stage, the Executive Officer, Pattamundai Notified Area Council asked the petitioner to give a written undertaking as appearing at Annexure-13. It is seeking an interim protection involving the above order, this Court in disposal of Misc. Case No. 1329 of 2005 vide order dated 22.12.2005 directed that in the meantime the salary of the petitioner, he was getting earlier, shall not be reduced in any manner. While the matter stood thus, Office order was again passed by the opposite party no.1 on 9.4.2012 regularizing the services of the contractual Junior Engineers (Civil) in the post of Junior Engineer(Civil) to LFS cadre from the date of completion of six years of uninterrupted service. Petitioner's name was shown at Sl.No.10 taking the date of contractual service of the petitioner on 9.1.2006 and consequently petitioner treated to have completed six years of uninterrupted service on 8.1.2012 vide Annexure-15 giving rise him to file the writ petition and the consequential amended writ petition presently under consideration. 3. Petitioner's name was shown at Sl.No.10 taking the date of contractual service of the petitioner on 9.1.2006 and consequently petitioner treated to have completed six years of uninterrupted service on 8.1.2012 vide Annexure-15 giving rise him to file the writ petition and the consequential amended writ petition presently under consideration. 3. Sri J.K.Rath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court to the entire documents involved herein contended that looking to the length of service of the petitioner even assuming that petitioner was a 44 days appointee from the beginning but, however, taking into consideration the decision of the competent authority regularizing 45 Junior Engineer (Civil) working on contractual basis in the post of Junior Engineer on 13.8.1998 contended that the petitioner though was continuing along with the above 45 Junior Engineers but for the inaction of the opposite parties, his employer, he is made to suffer for there being no recommendation of his name at that point of time. Secondly, taking to the subsequent decision of the authority involving Resolution No.9 to appoint the petitioner on ad-hoc basis in the scale of Junior Engineer, Sri J.K.Rath, learned senior counsel contended that for the petitioner not being regularized along with other similarly situated persons, at least considering the Resolution No.9 to allow the petitioner to the scale of pay of Junior Engineer vide order dated 9.6.1998, petitioner deserved to be regularized as Junior Engineer in the minimum from 9.6.1998. It is in the background of the case, Sri J.K.Rath, learned senior counsel again contended that in spite of full knowledge with the Municipality, all the victimization meted to the petitioner for not being regularized is only for the latches of the Municipality. Sri Rath, learned Senior Advocate in the circumstances contended that there was no occasion on the part of the Municipality to appoint him again on contractual basis on consolidated salary of Rs.4,000/- in Pattamundai Notified Area Council vide Annexure-11. Referring to the subsequent regularization of the petitioner vide Annexure-15, Sri Rath, learned senior counsel contended that instead of regularizing the petitioner from 8.1.2012, he should have been regularized along with 45 Junior Engineers, who have been regularized by the order of the competent authority since 13.8.1998. Referring to the subsequent regularization of the petitioner vide Annexure-15, Sri Rath, learned senior counsel contended that instead of regularizing the petitioner from 8.1.2012, he should have been regularized along with 45 Junior Engineers, who have been regularized by the order of the competent authority since 13.8.1998. It is in the above circumstance, Sri Rath, learned counsel while seeking interference of this Court in the action of the opposite parties requested this Court for interfering in the impugned orders and thereby granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. 4. Filing response, opposite party no.1while disputing the claim of the petitioner contended that for the nature of appointment of the petitioner being contractual or ad-hoc post till his services were regularized vide Annexure-15, there is no occasion to treat the petitioner as an regular employee since 1998. Again taking to the nature of appointment from time to time involving the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner was also decided on the premises that for the petitioner's appointment made under section 73(2) of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, it does not confer any right on the petitioner to claim for regularization and continuance thereof. It is further contended that petitioner continued in service not only knowing fully well the nature and term of appointment but he also continued in same terms and conditions for all these years and, therefore, he has no claim to succeed in the matter of regularization. 5. Similarly, opposite party no.2 also filing counter while supporting the stand of the State also contested the claim of the petitioner on the premises that it is in consideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 16.3.1998 Choudwar Municipality vide Resolution No.9 dated 30.5.1998 changed the terms of appointment of the petitioner from contractual basis to ad-hoc basis vide Office Order dated 9.6.1998. There has been sanction of scale of pay of Rs.1400/- to 1600/- with D.A. in favour of the petitioner with effect from 9.6.1998. The claim of the petitioner is also contested by the Municipality on the premises that Municipality has no power to regularize his services. It is only the Director of Municipal Administration to take such action. Learned State Counsel as well as the Municipal Counsel taking this Court to the counter averments of the respective parties such as opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2 objected the claim of the petitioner. 6. It is only the Director of Municipal Administration to take such action. Learned State Counsel as well as the Municipal Counsel taking this Court to the counter averments of the respective parties such as opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2 objected the claim of the petitioner. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the admitted fact remains with the initial appointment of the petitioner came through a recommendation from the Housing and Urban Development Department to the Executive Officer, Choudwar Municipality in consideration of a representation of the petitioner on 13.11.1997. On 29.11.1997, Choudwar Municipality in its sitting No.8 vide Resolution No.14 dated 29.11.1997 resolved to appoint the petitioner as Junior Engineer on contractual basis on a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- per month for 44 days appearing at Annexure-2. As a consequence of which appointment order was issued by the Executive Officer, Choudwar Municipality under the direction of Chairman, Choudwar Municipality, which appointment was again extended vide Resolution No.7 dated 31.1.1998 of the Choudwar Municipality. This was again extended vide Resolution No.9 dated 30.5.1998. It also surfaces from Annexure-6 that the Executive Officer of the Municipality under the direction of the Chairman, appointed the petitioner as a Junior Engineer in Municipal Office, Choudwar on ad-hoc basis in the time scale of pay of Rs.1400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600 with D.A. as sanctioned by the Government from time to time. It is here looking to the resolution of the Municipality dated 30.5.1998 appearing at page-32 of the brief, this Court finds though the appointment of the petitioner made under Annexure-6 was for a period of 44 days but the resolution clearly resolved to allow continuance of the petitioner in the scale of pay of Junior Engineer on contractual and ad-hoc basis. Here this Court observes giving appointment to the petitioner for 44 days vide Annexure-6 in the scale of pay of Junior Engineer remained contrary to the Resolution No.9 of the Municipality dated 30.5.1998, from Annexure-7 again this Court finds in consideration of the case of the Junior Engineers working in all the Urban Local Bodies, Selection Board recommended at last 45 cases of similarly situated persons for being regularized in the post of Junior Engineer, those who were holding on ad-hoc basis. It is at this stage, considering the submission of the petitioner and the claim of the petitioner and there being no opposition to the same, this Court finds there is no justifiable reason for not considering the case of the petitioner for being appointed as regular Junior Engineer along with these 45 persons. The counter affidavit of both the opposite parties is absolutely silent on this aspect. It is at this stage, this Court finds petitioner did not challenge the aspect of appointment of 45 similarly situated persons by complaining to the competent authority at the relevant point of time except challenging the said aspect by filing this writ petition in the year 2000 on the ground appearing at paragraph-6 to the writ petition. While the matter stood thus and while the petitioner was continuing on the basis of the direction contained in Resolution No.9 dated 30.5.1998 and the order vide Annexure-6 without resisting the same, a further development took place involving the petitioner through Annexure-11 whereby order dated 3.12.2005 the Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department passed order treating the batch of persons indicated therein who have been retrenched were provisionally selected including the petitioner for appointment on contractual basis on consolidated salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. It is needless to indicate here that entertaining this writ petition with the limited challenge available therein up to the orders involving Annexue-10, this Court on entertainment of the writ petition, as an interim measure passed the following order: Order No.3 dtd. 12.6.2000 Misc. CaseNo.5279 of 2000 "It is directed that if work is available, the petitioner shall not be terminated pursuant to Annexure-9 till 26.6.2000" 7. Counter affidavit nowhere discloses that the petitioner was terminated at any point of time and for the interim protection dated 12.6.2000 it is presumed that the petitioner is continuing allthrough. In this view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order at Annexure-11 so far the petitioner's continuing was unwarranted. However, for the petitioner getting a letter of relief from his duty to join the transferred place at Pattamundai Notified Area Council vide Annexure-12, an amendment of the writ petition being brought vide Misc. In this view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order at Annexure-11 so far the petitioner's continuing was unwarranted. However, for the petitioner getting a letter of relief from his duty to join the transferred place at Pattamundai Notified Area Council vide Annexure-12, an amendment of the writ petition being brought vide Misc. Case No.48 of 2006 by Order No.10 dated 16.1.2006 of this Court the amendment was allowed and in furtherance to the same by Order No.11 dated 16.1.2006 this Court allowed the order dated 22.12.2005 also to continue. It is observed here that by order dated 22.12.2005 this Court in consideration of the claim of the petitioner involving a Miscellaneous Application directed the authority to pay petitioner the salary at the rate as he was getting earlier; means, protection of the salary of the petitioner in the scale of pay of Junior Engineer vie Annexue-6. This Court here clarifies that for the interim order dated 12.6.2000 and the order dated 22.12.2005 as well as the order dated 16.1.2006 the petitioner service has been protected along with payment guaranteed vide Annexure-6. Now coming to the order passed vide Annexure-15, an order regularizing the service of the petitioner for his completion of ad-hoc service of six years in the post of Junior Engineer, this Court since already declared the order at Annexure-11 so far it relates to petitioner bad, the direction vide Annexure-15 so far it relates to petitioner name finds place at Sl.No.10 also automatically goes. But, however, for the recommendation of the Selection Board constituted under Rule 7 of the Orissa Local Fund Service Rules, 1975 facilitating regularization of contractual Junior Engineer in their completion of six years of uninterrupted service, the petitioner for his having six years uninterrupted service vide Resolution No. 9 dated 30.5.1998 and his ad-hoc appointment vide Annexure6,petitioner deserves to be regularized from 8.6.2004. 8. As a consequence of interference in the orders at Annexure-11 and 15 and the observation of this Court hereinabove, the Secretary to Government of Orissa, Department of Housing & Urban Developmentopposite party no.1 is directed to treat the petitioner to have been regularized in the post of Junior Engineer since 8.6.2004 and calculate all consequential benefits accordingly. 8. As a consequence of interference in the orders at Annexure-11 and 15 and the observation of this Court hereinabove, the Secretary to Government of Orissa, Department of Housing & Urban Developmentopposite party no.1 is directed to treat the petitioner to have been regularized in the post of Junior Engineer since 8.6.2004 and calculate all consequential benefits accordingly. Entire exercise be concluded within a period of one month and the arrear amount, if any, with interest @ 6% per annum all through be released within a period of one month thereafter. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. However, there is no order as to cost.