SUDARSAN MOHARANA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 3rd March, 2006 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, in O.A. No. 289 of 2006.

(2.) By the said judgment and order the Tribunal has rejected the Original Application filed by the petitioner as being devoid of merit. In the order which was passed by the Tribunal, the factual aspect of the case has been noted and it appears that the petitioner was appointed as a part time Technician for Cycle Repairing Sec. of the Blind and Deaf, and Dumb School, Bhubaneswar, on an allowance of Rs. 100.00 per month. From the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 10th Feb., 1971, it appears that the said facts were correctly noted. It appears that the petitioner's appointment was as a part time Technician and on a temporary basis. Apart from that the petitioner was not appointed to any scale of pay but the petitioner was being given an allowance of Rs. 100.00 per month. It appears that subsequently, by an order dated 23rd May, 1984, the Inspector of School, Puri Circle, Puri, adjusted the petitioner to act as full time craft teacher in the same school in the scale of pay of Rs. 255 to 390.00 with usual D.A. and A.D.A. as admissible under Rules from time to time with effect from 16.11.1983 against the post created vide Government Order No. 52047 EYS dated 16.11.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation on and from 31.1.2004 and his provisional pension and other benefits have been given. In the background of all these facts, the petitioner's contention is that his so-called appointment from 10.2.1971 onwards should be counted for reckoning his pension. It appears that pension has been given to the petitioner counting his service from 23.5.1984 till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.1.2004. But the period from 10.2.1971 till 23.5.1984 has not been counted for pension.

(3.) The Tribunal has gone through the materials on record and found that since the initial appointment was on a temporary basis the said service cannot be treated as pensionable service and so the Original Application was dismissed. Challenging the said order the petitioner has filed this writ petition.