PRADEEP KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ applications, the petitioners as well as privateopposite parties were serving together as "Engineers", in the earstwhile Orissa StateElectricity Board (O.S.E.B.). With the enactment of Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 and oncreation of the Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (in short "GRIDCO"), the services ofthe petitioners as well as the private opposite parties were transferred to the cadre ofGRIDCO w.e.f. 1.4.1997. Subsequently, on creation of various electricity distributioncompanies, the petitioners as well as the private opposite parties were "absorbed" byCentral Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited in short "CESCO") w.e.f.26.11.1998 now known as Central Electricity Supply Utility (in short "CESU").

(2.) CESCO issued a circular on 21.2.2000 indicating its decision to form a "newcadre", which would be called as the "Business Cadre" and subsequently re-designatedit as "Revenue Improvement Cadre" and invited applications from the existingemployees to submit their "options" for being considered for appointment in the newlycreated cadre. The petitioners hereinabove are persons who gave their "options" to join in the"Business cadre" and were duly selected, by a selection committee. Upon suchselection, the petitioners were given "appointment" in the "Revenue Improvement Cadre"(redesignated) w.e.f. 31.10.2000. Accordingly, pursuant to the aforesaid appointmentorders the petitioners joined in their respective services. It appears from the record thaton 29.12.2000 the petitioners were directed to submit their "resignation from the posts",which were earlier held by them. After submitting their resignations as required by theemployer, the petitioners continued in the "Revenue Improvement Cadre" till 7.8.2001,on which date, the "Revenue Improvement Cadre" was abolished due to a decisiontaken by the Board of Directors and the services of the petitioners were "terminated". Upon "termination" of their services, in the Revenue Improvement Cadre, theemployer, considering the past services of the petitioners, permitted the petitioners to re-join in their services in the old CESCO cadre by way of re-induction into the CESCOcadre, in the grade and scale of pay applicable to the petitioners, at the time when theyhad resigned from the said post and subject to a further condition that, they were to beplaced below the existing employees in the said cadre. All the petitioners after theirtermination from the Revenue Improvement Cadre submitted their applications to returnto the old CESCO cadre and were placed at the bottom of the same grade.

(3.) AFTER having taken note of the various contentions advanced by the learnedcounsel for the respective parties, it became necessary at this stage to first consider thecontention raised by the petitioners, that the Management of the CESCO having come tohold that the Managing Director was "incompetent" to issue Annexure-2 (Notice invitingapplications for creation of new Revenue Improvement Cadre) ought to have alsosimilarly directed that all actions subsequent to Annexure-2 ought to have also beendeclared invalid and the petitioners ought to have been put back to the same position asthey worked prior to joining the newly created Revenue Improvement Cadre. In this connection, the counter affidavit filed by the Management, "share holderagreement" was referred to who have relied upon and in particular, the ManagingDirector was authorized to take all steps including creation of new RevenueImprovement Cadre with the objection of improving the revenue collection for thepurpose of including the revenue for the Company.