STATE OF ORISSA Vs. CHAITANYA GOUDA AND FIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OPP . parties 1,2 and 5 are working as Work -charged employees from the year 1969, 1964 and 1963 respectively, whereas opp. parties 3 and 4 retired as Work -charged employees after having worked from 1962 and 1965 respectively in the establishment in question. No pensionary benefits having been extended, they approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar by way of Original Application No. 622 of 1999 for a direction to the Respondents to grant them retirement and other benefits by declaring them to be regular employees. By following a decision in a batch of cases, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application in the following terms :

(2.) "I accordingly direct that the applicants shall be absorbed in any establishment posts from the time they completed five years continuous service till the date when they retired from service. After such absorption, their pension and other pensionary benefits shall be computed on the basis of the notional fixation of pay in the regular establishment by adding annual increments which fell due and also taking into account various revisions of pay scales that were introduced. The process shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly the Original Application is allowed." Aggrieved therewith the State has preferred this writ petition. Having heard learned counsel, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order in view of the fact that the matter in dispute already stand concluded by two decisions of this Court in State of Orissa and others v. Jhuma Parida and others (O.J.C. No. 1162 of 1999, decided on 10.05.2000) and State of Orissa and others v. Sudarsan Sahu and another (O.J.C. No. 11028 of 1999 decided on 25.11.1999) in which similar challenge to the order of the Tribunal was made. Admittedly opp. parties 1 to 5 rendered their valuable services and considering this and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in SLP No. 11929 -930 of 1998 the impugned direction was issued. Hence we are of the view that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in its order. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. Application dismissed.