How file a suitable case

What are the terms of employment? Is there an agreement governing his employment? 

No contract  agreement sir, only based upon his reprentation the corporation extending his services every year, like that the company has give extention four times in four years.

The organization may be employing people on contract to avoid giving a permanent post as the requirement itself may not be continuous and for a longer period. Between renewals, they may be giving a break of one day also. It is a difficult situation. But, not to lose heart, you may advise your Brother to approach a local Lawyer specialising in Labour Laws to explore the possibility of obtaining a permanent footing in the organisation.

The recruitment rules are framed by State Govt, and everyone has to abide by that.    As of now, he is not entitled to claim any additional benefits and may have to plan his career remembering that there can be no growth in present assignment.

Thanking you sir, I have seen his extention orders and all four orders issued fifteen days advace of the contract closing period, there is no single day gap.my brother in a feeling that, the organization exploiting his services with a less pay and moreover he don't have daily attendance like other employees but management not allowed a single day leave to him and he is going regularly to the office

So the Employer is issuing renewal letters 15 days in advance of previous renewal and there is no gap in service. The renewals prove that till such renewal your brother did attend office and his services found to be satisfactory ( and hence the renewal of contract). As already advised earlier, you may approach local reliable Lawyer specializing in Labour Laws and show the copies of original contract letter and successive renewal letters to explore the possibility of converting present job into permanent employment There is a very remote chance which the Lawyer may advice about the feasibility of it.  But one thing to be borne in mind is that if the legal action ultimately fails, the Department may not renew his contract then onwards. 

Any employee should be recruited through a notification and laid down-selection process.   Irrespective of a number of years of continuous service, the contract employee is not entitled to claim rights as a regular employee.  There is never such a scope.

There is no legal issue / dispute in the facts posted by you which may be considered, opined and obliged by experts on this platform.

Sir as suggested I will take  a expert advice  as a lost chance

Okay, all the best.

The settled law is against regularisation of such adhoc/temporary/contractual employment. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Umadevi's case that -

"43. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That case arose out of a refusal to promote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a college. This Court held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent. "

However, the Supreme Court had held that there could be exceptional cases -

"44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."

If the instant case falls within the exception acrved out by the Apex Court, a representation could be made to the competent authority and if no positive result, the High Court could be approached in judicial review, if so advised.

Please say a little simpler