SUBODH CHANDRA DEBANATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a grievance that while allowing O.A. No. 614 of 1992, filed by him, vide judgment and order dated 04.05.1998, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, though directed to regularize his service with effect from the date of his initial engagement as a casual labourer, denied the consequential benefits, which were provided by its Hyderabad Bench to opposite party No. 5 who is a similarly circumstanced person, pursuant to which the department has also extended the consequential benefits to him (opposite party No. 5) happily.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as a casual Assistant Store Keeper on 21.08.1972 along with opposite party No. 5 and one J.V. Ratnam in the Naval Store Department under the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam,. He was then posted under the Commanding Officer, INS, Chilka, district Puri. While working in that capacity, his services were regularised along with other persons including opposite party No. 5 on 04.04.1975. On 04.12.1989, opposite party No. 3 published a seniority list of Store Keepers in all the Naval Commands, in which the name of the petitioner was shown much below the name of opposjte party No. 5. Petitioner's name was shown against SI. No. 267 (computerized 1628), whereas the name of opposite party No. 5 was shown against SI. No. 195 (computerized 1552).

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the decision of the Tribunal denying the consequential benefits and also against the discrimination shown by opposite parties 1 to 4 towards two similarly circumstanced employees, i.e., the petitioner and opposite party No. 5, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition.