PRAMOD CHANDRA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks modification of the order dtd. 14/3/2018 at Annexure-15 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.1116 (C) of 2011 and batch to the extent that the Petitioner, being a senior employee of the Rengali Irrigation Project, Samal, is entitled to the benefit of Work-charged establishment w.e.f. 2/9/1993 instead of 6/9/2003.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the Petitioner, being a "fully displaced person" of the Rengali Irrigation Project, Samal, was engaged by the Government as NMR employee on 1/10/1983. At the time of his engagement, two sets of employees were engaged by the Government in the same Project, one group was "partly affected persons" and the other was "fully displaced persons", to which group the Petitioner belonged. Opposite Party No.4, being a "partly affected person", was engaged as NMR on 1/11/1983. Total 1628 NMR employees were engaged, out of whom 1224 employees, who were partly affected, demanded regularization of their services. Since their request for regularization was not acceded to, the said employees approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, by filing O.A. Nos. 1560(C) of 1993, 1553(C) of 1993, 1562(C) of 1993, 1570(C) of 1993, 1651 (C) of 1993 and 1781(C) of 1993, which were disposed of vide order dtd. 2/6/1995 with a direction to bring them to the Work-charged establishment w.e.f. 2/9/1993. Challenging the order dtd. 2/6/1995 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1553(C) of 1993, the State preferred SLP (C) No.5526-5531 of 1996 before the apex Court, which was dismissed on 26/3/1999. As a consequence thereof, the Government of Orissa, Water Resources Department implemented the order dtd. 2/6/1995 passed by the Tribunal by way of bringing them to the Work-charged establishment w.e.f. 2/9/1993 with all consequential benefits.

(3.) Mr. N. Biswal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that rejection of claim of the Petitioner, to bring over him to the Work- charged establishment w.e.f. 2/9/1993, by the Tribunal, on the plea that earlier his claim was rejected vide order dtd. 30/6/2009 passed in O.A. No.1081 (C) of 2007, cannot have any justification. As such, this is an outcome of non-application of mind, which is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. It is also contended that once the Order dtd. 30/6/2009 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1081(C) of 2007 was modified by this Court, vide order dtd. 17/12/2009 passed in W.P.(C) No.10118 of 2009, the order passed by the Tribunal was merged with the order of this Court. As a consequence thereof, the stand taken by the State-Opposite Parties denying the benefit to the Petitioner, in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A No.1081 (C) of 2007, cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that 68 "fully displaced NMR employees", including the Petitioner, are senior to the other group of "partly affected employees" like Opposite Party No.4. Those junior employees, who got the benefit of Work-charged establishment w.e.f. 2/9/1993, were retrenched and now they have been re-engaged by the Government as per the order issued by Opposite Party No.2. Therefore, the Petitioner, being a senior employee of the said Project, is entitled to get the status of Work- charged establishment w.e.f. 2/9/1993, instead of 6/9/2003. Denial of such benefit by the Authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law, being violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.