BISWANATH GOUDA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially this application was registered as O.A. No.2359 of 2013 and on closure of the Tribunal on transfer of the case to this Court, it is re-registered as WPC(OA) No.2359 of 2013 and placed before this Court for disposal in exercise of power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Short background involved in this case is that the Petitioner got an appointment to the post of Auto Electrician under the work-charged establishment for a period of three months on ad.hoc basis with salary of Rs.240.00 per month in the scale of pay of Rs.240.00315/-. Petitioner joined the post on 1/12/1977 as clearly borne from Annexure-2. On 1/3/1978 the Petitioner's engagement on ad.hoc basis was extended for a further period of three months and the name of the Petitioner was at Sl.No.8. In a further development by the order vide Annexures-2/1 and 2/2 for the name of the Petitioner being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the Petitioner was allowed to continue as Auto Electrician under the work-charged establishment in the scale of pay of Rs.240.00315/-. While continuing as such the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Auto Electrician Grade-II in the scale of pay of Rs.300.00410/- and posted in the same Division. It appears, by the order dtd. 11/3/1982 vide Annexure-4 the Petitioner was not only promoted to the post of Auto Electrician Grade-I in the scale of pay of Rs.370.00550/-, but was also allowed to be posted in the same Division. While continuing as such, by order dated 6.069.1985 the Petitioner was transferred from the Gohira Dam project to the Upper Indravati Project and was also allowed to work under the Superintendent Engineer, Upper Indravati Mechanical Circle. In the meantime the Petitioner was re-posted to work under the Sub-Divisional Officer, Workshop and H.M. Sub-Division under Stores and Mechanicial Division, Upper Indravati Hydro Electric Project (UIHE Project), where he continued till the age of superannuation i.e. on 30/6/2010 as clearly borne from Annexure-6.

(3.) Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that though the Petitioner has served in a Government Establishment for more than 30 years being granted with several promotions, but strangely enough on the pretext of Petitioner's services placed allthrough under the work-charged establishment, he has not been provided with pension. Taking help of the resolution at Annexure-7 Petitioner attempted to claim that he would have long since been treated as a regular employee. Taking reference of another Finance Department memorandum at Annexure-9 the Petitioner claimed that for the observation made therein employees continuing for such long period under the Work-charged establishment are entitled to pension. Finding no respite the Petitioner made a representation on 29/5/2010 as appearing at Annexure-11 and in their response the Opposite Parties intimated the Petitioner vide Annexure-12 that his name has been recommended to Opposite Party No.3 to convert his status from work-charged employee to that of a regular employee and his name is also included in the list prepared for the said purpose. Taking help of an order of the Tribunal in disposal of O.A. No.922 of 1999 (Chaitanya Gouda and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others) the Petitioner claimed that considering the claim of similarly situated person particularly involving a superannuated person, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the applicant therein in the final disposal of the matter vide Annexure-13. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that challenging the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.622 of 1999 the State approached this Court in O.J.C No.12087 of 1999 and through Annexure-14 the Petitioner claimed that the above order of the Tribunal has been confirmed in dismissal of the writ petition. Petitioner further claimed that an SLP(C) was also moved involving the order of the Tribunal hereinabove, which has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble apex Court as appearing at Annexure-16. Taking help of the orders at Annexures-16 and 16/1 the Petitioner submits that the order of the Tribunal in disposal of the O.A. No.622 of 1999 have been implemented. Petitioner also takes help of a judgment in similarly situated case passed by the Tribunal itself involving the Upper Kolab Project.