BINAPANI PATTANAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submission of the applicant, in brief, is that she was appointed as an attendant in Class IV cadre. Subsequently pursuant to the order of this Tribunal she was appointed as a junior clerk on ad hoc basis vide order dated 2.6.92 at Annexure -5 and since then she has been continuing in the said post and has been transferred from place to place. She submits that she has not been granted time bound advancement benefits. Accordingly she has filed this application to declare that she has been continuing as a junior clerk on regular basis, she be granted T.B.A. scale and A.C.P.

(2.) RESPONDENTS have filed a written counter. It is submitted that the applicant was given irregular appointment her service has been discontinued in the year 1985. She had filed an original application vide O.A. 631/1992 to allow her to continue as junior clerk and typist. Accordingly this Tribunal passed necessary order in her favour. Subsequently she was appointed as a junior clerk on ad hoc basis vide order dated 2.6.92. She has been so appointed without adhering to the recruitment rule. It is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to get TBA as provided under ORSP Rule, 2008 as she has been continuing as an ad hoc employee.

(3.) AS the applicant has not undergone recruitment test while she was appointed as junior clerk, she has been appointed on ad hoc basis pursuant to the order of this Tribunal. So there cannot be any declaration that she is a regularly appointed clerk.