BIJAY KUMAR MOHARANA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above noted writ applications have been filed against the order of retrenchment as indicated in detail hereunder. Since the retrenched employees were working under the different Irrigation divisions and they have projected almost identical / common case as against the order of retrenchment, therefore, they have advanced similar argument. Thus, the cases are considered analogously and this judgment shall abide the result in all the aforesaid cases.

(2.) FORTY two petitioners in O. J. C. No. 8414 of 2001 have challenged to the order of retrenchment, Annexure-3, i. e. , Letter No. 2092-2133 dated June 29, 2001, signed by the Executive Engineer, Balasore Irrigation Division, Balasore (opposite party No. 3 ). It is mentioned in Annexure-3 that as per the decision of the Government of Orissa in the Department of Water Resources in their Letter No. 20222 dated May 25, 2001, the junior-most N. M. R. staff were to be retrenched following Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short, 'the Act') with effect from June 30, 2001, as their services were no more required. They were directed to receive their dues from the different divisions. It is also stated in Annexure-3 that in case of need of man-power in the same category in future the retrenched candidate will be given priority over the fresh recruits. It is alleged in the writ applications that the principle of "last come first go" was not followed by the Authorities inasmuch as the petitioner No. 1 having been engaged as N. M. R. since June 1, 1985 was ordered to be retrenched whereas one Bhaskar Bhoi, who was engaged in the year 1990 has been retained. Petitioners have also stated that after completion of a project the surplus N. M. R. can be terminated or retrenched but since they are working in a working division, that principle should not be adopted. They have also stated that petitioners are working since 1985. Above all, petitioners' defence against the retrenchment is the report Annexure-2 issued by opposite party No. 3 to opposite party No. 2 regarding requirement of staff and there being no surplus. That letter was sent by opposite party No. 3 to opposite party No. 2 on September 25, 2000. It is noted in annexure-2 (Information part) that the Division maintained 30 Kms. of capital embankment, 60. 50 Kms. of flood embankment, 123. 95 Kms. of saline embankment, 317. 95 Kms of T. H. embankment and 250 Kms. of O. C. C. embankment, in total, a length of 782. 50 Kms. It is further noted in that report that as per the norms of the yardstick there are still vacancies of 63 numbers of Khalasis, 16 numbers of Work-Sarkar, 2 numbers of Jeep-Drivers and 1 each of truck-helper and Chowkidar, Accordingly, including the petitioner as the N. M. R. employee, opposite party No. 3 on September 21, 2000 reported that there was no surplus staff. It is alleged that notwithstanding the aforesaid report of opposite party No. 3, the Government, as per the letter of the Addl. Secretary to Government to the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources, Bhubaneswar, declared 1894 numbers as surplus work-charged employees and 2692 as N. M. R. workers having no work for them. Accordingly. Government decision to make retrenchment of that number of persons was intimated with a direction to complete retrenchment by June 30, 2001.

(3.) IN his counter affidavit, opposite party No. 3 stated that petitioners have placed the fact in a distorted manner and put veil on truth inasmuch as the report, Annexure-2, referred to by the petitioners is not totally and absolutely factually correct. He has explained that the Executive Engineer took a Division as a unit and indicated about 83 vacancies in different posts. But subsequently the Circle was taken as a unit and on calculation it was found that there was number of surplus employees working in the Circle and accordingly termination notices were issued. So far as it relates to the principle of 'last come first go', he has replied that the principle of last come first go was followed with respect to each category of workers working in the Circle and the number of surplus staff from each individual category was ordered to be retrenched by following the principle of 'last come first go' and since petitioner No. 1 Bhaskar Bhoi does not belong to the same category, therefore, the comparison is not proper. He has further stated that review of the cases of surplus staff was made and the decision was taken as per Annexure-A. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of Annexure-A, in substance reveals that the Gradation List/muster-Roll on the basis of seniority / date of engagement of the N. M. Rs. / job contract employees was not systematically prepared. Nineteen out of them had approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O. A. No. 51/ (e) of 1995. On April 17, 1999, in Lok Adalat their case was disposed of with a direction to consider their case in accordance with Finance Department Resolution No. 22764 dated May 15, 1997 and till then their services were not to be terminated. The list of N. M. Rs. maintained in the Circle is partially defective, therefore, it was to be properly worked out on the basis of seniority in the Circle after verification of records from the Section Offices, Sub-divisional offices and Offices of the Executive Engineers and that is to take some time. Opposite party No. 2 in that letter in the last paragraph needed assistance of surplus staff with the apprehension of mischief being committed by them if they would be retrenched at the commencement of the rainy season and when that zone is flood-prone area. That letter, as noted, was addressed to the Engineer-in-Chief on July 5, 2001.