RABINARAYAN MOHANTY Vs. BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are nine in number, have filed this writ application challenging the order dated 4 5 1998 in Annexure 5 withdrawing the earlier order of regularisation of service passed in their favour.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they were engaged as D.L.R. Mates in the year 1989 through an agency under the Bhubaneswar Development Authority ('B.D.A.', for short). On 1 12 1991 all the petitioners, except petitioner No. 3, were directly engaged under the B.D.A. and with effect from 1 1 1992 petitioner No. 3 was directly engaged under the B.D.A. . On 13 12 1994 the B.D.A. regularised the services of 171 D. L. R, employees who had served for a minimum period of five years by 1 12 1994 and the petitioners were amongst the 171 D. L. R. employees. After the said decision was taken on 13 12 1994, on 9 6 1996 in the first phase, the B.D.A. regularised the services of the employees in Annexure 1, except 15 candidates. On 14 8 1996 the B.D.A. again regularised six such D.L.R. employees in the second phase and only the petitioners were left out. On 4 3 1997 the petitioners approached the B.D.A. for regularisation as all other D.L.R. employees in the list had already been regularised. The matter was examined at the end of the B.D.A. and the B.D.A. in its meeting dated 2 5 1997 decided to regularise the services of the petitioners with effect from 1 12 1994. By order dated 27 5 1997 the services of the petitioners were regularised with effect from 1 12 1994 and from June, 1997 the petitioners were allowed to draw their salary and allowances and the service books of the petitioners were opened from August, 1997. From August, 1997 also the petitioners were allowed house rent allowance as paid to the regular employees of theB.D.A. . Increments were also allowed in favour of the petitioners. Suddenly by order dated 4 5 1998 the B. D. A. has withdrawn the order of regularisation on the ground that the petitioners had not completed 5 years of service directly under the B.D.A. as on 1 12 1994, The said order has been challenged before this Court.

(3.) A counter has been filed on behalf of the B.D.A. wherein it is stated that a decision had been taken by it to regularise the services of those D.L.R. employees who had completed five years of service directly under the B.D.A. as on 1 12 1994. Admittedly the petitioners were directly engaged by the B.D A. with effect from 1 12 1991 except petitioner No. 3who was directly engaged by B.D.A. with effect from 1 1 1992. Therefore, as on 1 12 1994 they had not completed five years of service directly under the B.D.A. and as such were not entitled for consideration for regularisation. The decision of the B.D.A. to regularise the services of the petitioners taking into consideration the service rendered under the agency was contrary to the earlier decision and the B.D.A. had the power to revoke the order of regularisation, if on verification it was found that the informations submitted by the employees are false and fabricated. It is further submitted on behalf of the B.D.A. that this fact came to the knowledge of the B.D.A. when another employee working on D.L.R. basis similarly placed as that of the petitioners approached the B.D.A. for regularisation on the ground that he is also entitled for regularisation as he stands on the same footing as that of the petitioners. When the matter was examined, it was found that the petitioners had not completed five years of service directly under the B.D.A. by 1 12 1994 and therefore, the order of regularisation was withdrawn. Coming to the next question raised by the learned counsel for petitioner that no notice was served on the petitioners or opportunity was afforded to them it is submitted on behalf of the B.D.A. that when the facts are admitted, there is no necessity for giving an opportunity of hearing. In course of argument, apart from what had been submitted earlier, Shri Sahoo also pointed out that there are some other employees whose services under the agency were taken into account for the purpose of computing five years of services and their services were regularised. Learned counsel appearing for the B.D.A. submitted that when the B.D.A. came to know about such erroneous decision the orders of regularisation passed in favour of those employees had been withdrawn and the matter is subjudice before this Court.