DHANANJAYA SAHOO Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the aforesaid two writ petitions as the facts and the points of law involved in both of them are the same.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 in OJC 112/94 was appointed as a mate on NMR basis in the year 1981. He continued as such up to the year 1987. Thereafter, he was retrenched from service and was again appointed in the said post on 2 -4 -1991. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 worked as a Pump Operator under the opposite party -Corporation from 5 -10 -1981 to 8 -6 -1985 and then as Helper Grade - I from 22 -7 -1985 to 14 -6 -1987 on NMR basis. He was retrenched and was again appointed as Helper. According to the petitioners, though their counterparts in the regular establishment of the opposite party -Corporation were getting higher emoluments, they were denied the benefit. The petitioners have claimed equal pay and allowences as are available to their counterparts in the regular establishment. They have also made a prayer for regularisation of their services.

(3.) THE claim of the petitioners is based on a decision of the apex Court in Managing Director, Orissa Construction Corpn. and Ors. v. Shyam Sundar Jena and Ors. : 1992 (II) OLR 515, by which the Division Bench decision of this Court was approved with modification. This Court had allowed the writ petition of the workmen in the following terms: