AJAYA KUMAR HOTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this Writ Petition to direct the Opp. Parties to grant him regular pay of scale of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000 as admissible with respect to Junior Engineers (Scheme).

(2.) PETITIONER holds Diploma in Civil Engineering. He passed in the year 1986. He has registered his name in the Employment Exchange. His name was enrolled as unemployed Diploma holder in the list maintained by the Chairman, Committee of Chief Engineers & concerned Heads of Departments & the Engineer -in -Chief (Civil) Orissa, Bhubaneswar. Petitioner being an unemployed Diploma Engineer, his name appeared as a Junior Engineer against the J.E. (Scheme) under the District Rural Development Agency, Keonjhar vide letter No. 18094 dated 28.03.2000, as per Annexure -1 . The Project Director, DRDA, Keonjhar in his letter No. 1558 dated 06.04.2000 directed the Petitioner to be present in his office with documents for verification on or before 15.04.2000.

(3.) ON an earlier occasion, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition bearing No. W.P. No. 14644 of 2006, inter alia, praying to grant scale of pay, which is meant for Junior Engineers. The Writ Petition was disposed of on 23.04.2007 directing the Opp. Party No. 1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner within a period of two months. Petitioner, further, pleads that after considering the material facts & violating the Court's direction, the Opp. Parties have passed the order after one year rejecting his claim mentioning, inter alia, that his appointment is on contractual basis & no regular salary can be paid to him. Petitioner pleads that his appointment is against a Scheme for which the Central Government is granting 75% of salary & for which the State Government should not have allowed the consolidated salary, which violates the Orissa District Rural Development Employees Service Regulation. Petitioner, further, pleads that there is already seven existing vacancy, out of which, one post he has been appointed & six posts still lying vacant. He further pleads that his case is a left out one & the Opp. Party No. 1 should not have directed the order of appointment in favour of the Petitioner at a consolidated pay on contract basis. The Petitioner pleads that though the Opp. Party No. 1 has directed to issue order of appointment in favour of then Petitioner on consolidated pay on contract basis but the DRDA as per the Order Dated 27.06.2005 issued order of appointment in favour of the Petitioner & engagement was on annual contract basis as J.E. (Scheme) in a consolidated remuneration & also imposed several causes, one of which, he has to submit stamp papers of Rs. 11 for preparing annual contract. It is submitted that when the Opp. Party No. 1. has not directed to impose such condition, the DRDA, while issuing order of appointment in pursuance of the order passed by the Opp. Party No. 1, should not have imposed the condition that the Petitioner should submit a stamp papers of Rs. 11. Moreover, the Petitioner has not furnished that stamp papers for preparation of annual contract & has not accepted that contract. Thus, on such pleadings, the Petitioner claimed that the directions may be given to Opp. Parties to grant him regular pay of scale by quashing the order of contractual appointment, Annexure -5 & the order of rejecting representation under Annexure 11.