TUKUBABU DASH Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks, in the guise of modification of order dtd. 20/4/2018 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 2509(C) of 2016, direction to the opposite parties to count his services from 25/8/1983 as qualifying service for availing retiral benefits.

(2.) This case has a chequered career. The petitioner, who was initially working as a constable in the office of Reserve Officer, Sundargarh, had approached the tribunal praying for a direction to the opposite parties to count his appointment to be on regular basis, instead of contractual appointment, pursuant to the direction of this Court with all consequential financial and service benefits from the date he got afresh appointment. But fact remains, the petitioner after being duly selected was appointed against a regular post, vide order 25/8/1983, and his service was terminated, vide order dtd. 30/4/1984, as his service was no longer required in police department. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to the higher authorities and since no remedy was made available against such illegal action of the opposite parties, he approached this Court by filing OJC No.1890 of 1984, wherein direction was given to the Special I.G. to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, if pending, within a period of two months. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner filed OJC No. 1296 of 1985 before this Court, which was dismissed for non-appearance on 13/3/1986. Thereafter, against the said order of dismissal, restoration petition bearing MJC No.65 of 1986 was filed, which was also dismissed for non-prosecution. After coming to know about dismissal of the OJC, the petitioner filed OA. No.1075 (C) of 1994 before the tribunal and the tribunal, vide order dtd. 24/6/1994, directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner to save him from starvation, which was ultimately rejected on the ground that the representation was submitted with abnormal delay.

(3.) Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner was appointed on 25/8/1983 and his service was terminated w.e.f. 30/4/1984, by virtue of the order dtd. 5/11/2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10675 of 2009, the termination order was set aside and he was directed to appointed "afresh" as temporary constable. But the petitioner was not extended with the financial benefits, as due and admissible to him for the period he was terminated from service. It is contended that the past service of the petitioner should be taken into consideration for counting as qualifying service, so that he can get the benefit in accordance with law. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Satbir Singh v. Chief of the Army Staff, New Delhi, (2013) 1 SCC 390.