PRAVAT KISHORE MOHANTY Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, ORISSA STATE POLICE HOUSING AND WELFARE CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is continuing as a Building Supervisor under the Orissa State Police Housing and Welfare Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar, in short, "the Corporation", has filed this petition seeking for a direction to treat him as a regular employee w.e.f. 5.11.1982 and to allow him Time Bound Advancement scale of pay w.e.f. 5.11.1997 and promotion to the post of Assistant Project Manager.

(2.) The short fact of the case, in hand, is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Corporation in daily news paper "The Prajatantra" on 3.5.1982 inviting applications for appointment as Building Supervisor in the scale of pay of Rs.320-750/-, the petitioner applied for the same and following a due procedure of selection, he was appointed as Training Supervisor from 5.11.1982. On completion of his training vide office order dated 23.6.1986, the petitioner was allowed to draw the scale of pay of Rs.320-750/- w.e.f. 15.6.1986, but the said scale of pay was reduced to Rs.320-550/- vide office order dated 23.7.1987 on the ground that Building Supervisor is equivalent to Building A.S.I. and was allowed the scale of pay admissible to the Building A.S.I. Against the said reduction of scale of pay, the petitioner made a representation on 31.8.1988 before the authority. Instead of considering the same, the petitioner was retrenched from service vide letter dated 3.2.1988. On the very same day, the petitioner was given ad hoc appointment for a period of 89 days in the scale of pay of Rs.840-1345/- and again he was retrenched from service vide order dated 17.7.1990. Challenging the said order of retrenchment, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.J.C.No. 601 of 1991, which was disposed of vide order dated 2.12.1991 directing the authorities to absorb him in the scale of pay Rs.840-1345/- without back wages. This Court further directed that the said period would be computed for calculation of other service benefits admissible to the petitioner. In compliance to the said order, the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of six months, which was extended from time to time. Challenging the said ad hoc appointment, again the petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 8229 of 1992 seeking for regularization of services and to treat him as permanent employee under the opposite party no.1-Corporation. This Court by order dated 7.2.1996 directed for regular absorption of the petitioner instead of periodic appointment given to him. In compliance to the said order, the petitioner is continuing in the said post of Building Supervisor. Even though he has completed 15 years of service, he has not been extended with Time Bound Advancement scale of pay admissible to the post as per the O.R.S.P. Rules, 1998 giving effect from 1.1.1996. The petitioner filed a representation before opposite party no.1 on 29.9.2002 to consider his case for grant of Time Bound Advancement scale of pay. Despite such representation, the petitioner's case has not been considered as a regular employee with effect from his initial date of joining, i.e. 5.11.1982 and in the meantime, he has completed three years Correspondence Diploma (Civil) under JRN, Rajasthan Vidyapitha University, Udaypur in the year 2007, which has been reflected in the service book of the petitioner. Even though he has passed the Diploma in Engineering (Civil), his case has not been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Project Manager. That apart, he has not been allowed to work independently and instead he has been directed to work under an ad hoc employee. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Mr.L.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that though the petitioner has completed 28 years of service, he has not been given any promotion. The scale of pay, which was initially granted to him at the rate of Rs.320-750/- was reduced to Rs.320-550/- on the plea that Building Supervisor is equivalent to Building A.S.I. While reducing the scale of pay, the authorities have lost sight of the fact that the Building A.S.I. has got promotional avenues to the post of Building S.I., which is equivalent to the post of Assistant Project Manager. Even though the petitioner has acquired qualification of Diploma in Engineering (Civil), but he has not been granted promotion, thereby, he is facing stagnation of post held by him. That apart, Time Bound Advancement scale of pay has not been granted though by virtue of the order passed by this Court he is entitled to get continuous service. Due to stagnation and lack of promotional benefits, though Time Bound Advancement scale of pay is admissible to the petitioner, the same has not been extended to the petitioner. In addition to the same, it is urged that though the authorities are appointing persons on contractual basis against the post of Assistant Project Manager, but the petitioner's case has not been considered for such post either by promotion or by granting the scale of pay admissible to the said post. It is further urged that promotion is a part of fundamental rights of the employees as guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the employer is duty bound to create promotional avenues for all its employees. The petitioner having not been granted promotion for last 28 years, the authorities are acting contrary to the provisions of law. Therefore, he seeks for interference of this Court. To substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in State of Tripura v. K.K.Roy, 2004 AIR(SC) 1249, Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary (Home )Department, Govt. of Bihar, 1988 AIR(SC) 1033 and Union of India v. Hemarajsingh Chauhan and others, 2010 AIR(SC) 1682