MANOJ KUMAR BISWAL Vs. CUTTACK DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the Petitioner challenges the final gradation list (Annexure -14) issued under Order Dated 24.11.2006 by Opp. Party No.1 -Cuttack Development Authority (in short 'CDA') and further prays to make the provisional gradation list (Annexure -7) final maintaining position of the Petitioner at S1.No.7 of the gradation list of Junior Assistants.

(2.) THE case of the Petitioner is that on his application, the Petitioner was engaged to do office work on daily wage basis on payment of Rs.20 per day vide order of Opp. Party No.1 through its Finance and Accounts Member vide letter dated 15.03.1989 under Annexure -1 though the Petitioner was sponsored by the Balashrama and on the very day, i.e., 15.03.1989 the Petitioner reported for duty. Annexure -3 is said to be the absentee statement indicating the attendance of the Petitioner on duty for the month of March, 1989. While the Petitioner was working on such daily wage basis, Opp. Party No.1 in its 38th meeting dated 10.12.1994 decided to regularise the services of DLR employees with certain stipulations and accordingly issued order No.12326 dated 19.12.1994 vide. Annexure -5 regularising the services of DLR employees working under different categories and gradation, who have completed services for one year or more as on 30.11.1994. Accordingly, nineteen DLR employees including the Petitioner were regularised as Junior Assistants under Opp. Party No.1 vide Order Dated 19.12.1994 under Annexure -6. Vide office order No.6114 dated 16.3.2000, Opp. Party No.1 prepared provisional gradation list (Annexure -7), wherein the Petitioner was placed at S1.No.7 whereas Opp. Party Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were placed at S1.No.8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 respectively. Thereafter vide order of Opp. Party No.1 dated 23.03.2000 under Annexure -8 the Petitioner along with some others was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on ad hoc basis for one year and the Petitioner joined the post on the same day and his joining report was accepted. In the meantime, the present Opp. Party No.7 challenged the provisional/gradation list as well as the promotion order of the Petitioner by filing OJC No.4988 of 2000 wherein the Petitioner was impleaded as Opp. Party No.5 and one Yashobanta Das was Opp. Party No.4. The present Opp. Party No.5 -Smt.Manasi Baral was impleaded as Opp. Party No.6 in the said Writ Petition. It is further stated that in the said Writ Petition, Cuttack Development Authority -Opp. Party No.1 filed a counter affidavit contending that the present Petitioner worked under it earlier to the present Opp. Party No.7 (Petitioner in OJC No. 4988 of 2000) and as such deserved to be ranked above him and that it had taken into consideration the date of engagement of the employees while preparing the provisional gradation list irrespective of the mode or manner of their engagement. However instead of deciding on merits, this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ application with a direction to Opp. Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner therein (present Opp. Party No.7) within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, the final gradation list under Annexure -14 has been issued by Opp. Party No.1 degrading the Petitioner from S1.No.7 to S1.No.14 by placing Opp. Party No.5 to 9 above the Petitioner at S1.No.7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 respectively even though they had joined in the office of C.D.A. respectively on 11.01.1990, 07.03.1990, 02.12.1990, 16.09.1991 and 18.11.1991 and had been placed below the Petitioner in the provisional gradation list. It is therefore, contended on behalf of the Petitioner that irrespective of the fact that he is engaged on daily wage basis under Opp. Party No.1 while sponsored through the Balashrama and that he was directly paid by Opp. Party No.1 from 21.08.1992, his seniority should be counted from the date of his initial appointment i.e., on 15.3.1989.

(3.) OPP . Party Nos.6 and 7 have filed two separate counter affidavits taking almost identical stands. It is stated by them that Utkal Balashrarna, Cuttack is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Petitioner was an employee of Balashrama. The Finance and Accounts member of the C.D.A. vide letter No.3689 dated 16.3.1989(Annexure -A/7) requested the Superintendent of Utkal Balashrama to sponsor some candidates to do casual work under the C.D.A. on payment of daily wages of Rs.20. The arrangement indicated in the said letter was that the C.D.A. will forward the monthly attendance chart of the candidates every month to Utkal Balashrama for counter signature whereafter the bill for wages would be passed by the C.D.A. arid the amount would be handed over to Balashrama for - disbursement to the respective candidates and for this the C.D.A. was prepared to pay 5% as administrative charges to the Balashrama. It is alleged in the counter affidavits of Opp. Party Nos.6 and 7 that the appointment letter filed by the Petitioner vide Annexure -1 is forged one and has not actually been issued to the Petitioner from the C.D.A. Similarly, it is also stated that the joining report of the Petitioner vide Annexure -2 is also a fabricated document. Lastly, it is stated that the Petitioner was sponsored by Utkal Balashrama for doing some casual work in the C.D.A from 21.12.1990 and on his own representation and with the consent of Balashrama authorities he received his daily wages directly from the C.D.A. from 21.08.1992. It is, therefore, contended that the private Opp. Parties having been engaged directly by the C.D.A. since 1990, the Petitioner's claim of seniority over them is not sustainable.