SARASWATI PADHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners seek direction for regularisation of their services and for fixing their pay on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work.

(2.) THEIR case is, both joined as Typist -Cum -Junior Clerk on 89 days basis on daily wage of pay of Rs. 15/ -. Petitioner No. 1 joined in the post on 26 -7 -1986 and petitioner No. 2 on 8 -1 -1990. Their such appointments were extended from time to time with fictional break with the sole purpose of retaining them as temporary employees. The petitioners claim that since their appointments were made against permanent vacancies, denial of absorption on regular basis is illegal.

(3.) HEARD Mr. B. S. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the DRDA (opp. party No. 2). Learned counsel for the State relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Shirola and others etc. v. Tirtha Raj and Ors., reported in JT 1995 (6) SC 517 and submitted that the DRDA being an agency of the Government and its employees being Government servants this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Rather, the State Administrative Tribunal is the appropriate forum. We are unable to accept this contention because, going through the various Clauses of the Dye -laws we find that the affairs of. the Society are governed by the Governing Body of the Society. The Society also is competent to appoint various personnel to the posts -under it, though the posts can also be filled up by deputation from Government. The main function of the Society is to implement various schemes of the Government to ameliorate the miseries of the poorer sections of the society in the rural areas from funds provided by the government. Therefore, it can be said that the Society is a Society which performs public duty and so is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. That apart, the constitution of its Governing Body with the Collector as its Chairman and others being official members amply shows the pervasive control of the Government over the Society, Since opp. party No. 2 is not a Government organisation the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act are not applicable. Therefore, we are of the view that this Court has jurisdiction to decide the disputs raised in this case. - - - -