SHYAM SUNDAR PARIJA Vs. ORISSA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a retired employee of the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation opposite party No. 1 has filed this writ application for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the following retirement dues :

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as A.T.M. in the Orissa Road Transport Corporation on 27.1.1961 and while working under the Company, he was promoted to the post of Traffic Manager/District Transport Manager. By notification dated 14.8.1990 issued by the Department of Commerce and Transport (Transport), Orissa Road Transport Company was taken over by the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, opposite party No. 1 with effect from 16.8.1990. For acquisition of Orissa Road Transport Company, an agreement was executed. Apart from taking over Orissa Road Transport Company, the petitioner joined the opposite party No. 1, Corporation and was given further promotion to the post of Deputy General Manager (Operation) and finally retired from service on superannuation on 30th June, 1996. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he retired on superannuation in June, 1996, his retirement benefits as indicated above had not been paid to him as a result of which he had no other option except approaching this Court.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No. 1. Shri Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 1 referring to the counter affidavit submitted that though the petitioner retired on superannuation from 30th June, 1996, his retirement dues such as gratuity could not be paid to him because of Audit objection pending against the petitioner. After retirement, a sum of Rs. 89,682/ was paid to the petitioner towards other retirement dues, but so far as gratuity is concerned, it was found that a sum of Rs. 2,87,824/ was outstanding against the petitioner. After receipt of such report, the Audit Superintendent of the Corporation was instructed to verify the connected records at respective places and submit a report. Thereafter, the gratuity was sanctioned on 15.12.1998 subject to finalisation of the amount outstanding against the petitioner and it was found that the petitioner was entitled to gratuity of Rs. 1,00,000/ and out of the said amount, Rs. 9988/ had been paid to the petitioner before he approached this Court. According to Shri Choudhury, considering the financial condition of the Corporation as well as payment due to several retired employees, the Corporation was of the view that it would not be possible to pay the entire retirement benefits to its employees and accordingly, all the retired employees were paid their retirement dues in instalments and in the meantime the entire gratuity amount so far as the petitioner is concerned, has been paid. So far as differential arrear salary as claimed by the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Corporation that no employee of the Corporation has been allowed revised scale of pay and, therefore, the petitioner is also not entitled to get revised scale of pay. According to Shri Choudhury, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, the Corporation has to adopt, by way of resolution, the revised scale of pay as has been made available to the Government employees and in absence of such resolution, no employee can claim pay in the revised scale of pay.