STATE OF ORISSA Vs. NITYANANDA SETHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed by the State along with Miscellaneous Applications for condonation of delay in each of the appeals explaining the delay in filing the appeals urging various facts and legal contentions.

(2.) MR . R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate submitted that by the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the writ petitions arising out of which the present appeals arise, directing the State Government to pay the arrears of salary to the respondent no.1 in all these appeals, who are the employees of Shree Sarala Weavers Co -operative Spinning Mills Ltd., (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Mills ') in terms of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 11333 of 2003, would be borne from the State exchequer and thereby the order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Officers and Supervisors of L.D.P.L. v. Chairman and M.D., I.D.P.L. and others, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 490, State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha, (2009) 5 SCC 694, A.K. Bindal and another v. Union of India and others, (2003) 5 SCC 163 and State of U.P. and Anr. v. Uptron Employees ' Union, CMD and others, (2006) 5 SCC 319. He further contended that in the scheme introduced for voluntary retirement of the employees of the Mills the State Government had offered limited financial assistance of payment of ex -gratia @ 21 days salary for every completed year of service + gratuity and leave encashment to each one of the employee who is intending to take voluntary retirement. The said scheme was again amended in 2002 and 2005. However, the Mills was closed for various reasons. The Mills invited applications from its employees under the voluntary retirement scheme. The State Government passed a resolution on 23.12.2005 clarifying that their liability would be limited to assistance they have offered and that the employees will give an undertaking that they would not claim any dues from the State Government in any other forum other than what has been offered. Upon furnishing such undertaking by the employees, the employees would be paid their dues under the voluntary retirement scheme. Since no dues were paid to the employees, they filed writ petitions before this Court claiming benefits of arrears of salary from the State Government, which according to them were not paid by their employer. The said writ petitions were allowed on the basis of the order dated 29.4.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 11333 of 2003 without giving an opportunity to the State to file counter affidavit. Against the said order, the State of Odisha went in appeal before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 7057 of 2005 (State of Orissa v. Labani Jena and others) with an application for condonation of delay. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground of limitation as well as on merit vide order dated 28.3.2005. Thereafter, the State of Orissa also filed Review petition bearing Review petition No. 362 of 2006, the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court observing that no explanation has been given for the inordinate delay of 310 days and even otherwise, there is no merit in the petition. That apart, the State of Orissa also went in civil appeal challenging the said order dated 29.4.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 11141 of 2003 bearing Special Leave petition No. 7635 of 2006 (State of Orissa v. Panchanan Sahu others) and the same also came to be dismissed on 21.4.2006 on the ground of delay and merit.

(3.) LEARNED Government Advocate placing reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Rekha Rani, AIR 2011 S.C. 1893 (Paragraphs 6 and 10), Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and Anr. v. G. Jayarama Reddy and Ors, (2011) 10 SCC 608 (para -35) in support of the proposition of law submits that dismissal of Special Leave Petition at the stage of condonation of delay and consequential dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on merit also does not amount to merger of the order of the learned Single Judge with that of the order of the Supreme Court. Therefore, he submits that these appeals are required to be allowed as there is no statutory liability cast upon the State Government to pay the arrears of salary to these employees, who are respondent no.1 in all these appeals.