SUBASH CHANDRA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an employee of Orissa State Police Housing Welfare Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation'), files this application seeking direction to opposite party no. 2 to pay the 50% balance back wages for the suspension period w.e.f. 02.09.2010 to 30.06.2011 and full salary for the period from 14.12.2012 to 14.01.2013 within a stipulated time, and further to allow him to work as Deputy Manager (Civil) as per the judgment dated 13.12.2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 24213 of 2011.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) by the Managing Director of the Corporation pursuant to order dated 23.01.1989 on ad hoc basis for a period of 44 days only on a consolidated pay of Rs. 900.00 with site allowance of Rs. 150.00 per month. His services were regularized w.e.f. 23.09.1991 and he was posted as an Asst. Project Manager (Civil). Being aggrieved by the action of the Corporation in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Project Manager, he had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10388 of 2007 challenging promotion of two persons from the post of Asst. Project Manager (Civil) to the post of Deputy Project Manager on the ground that those two persons had only about six months of regular service, whereas the petitioner had more than 2 years of regular service and, therefore, the promotion of those persons were made arbitrarily and had been done with extraneous consideration.

(3.) Mr. S.N. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Corporation having not been registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is regulated by its own bye laws. Under subclause (c) (iii) of Clause-9 of the Bye laws, suspension has not been indicated as measure of punishment. As such, during the suspension period from 02.09.2010 to 30.06.2011 the petitioner having paid his subsistence allowance @ 50% of his salary, in view of the observation made by this Court in paragraph 9 of judgment dated 112.2012 passed in WP(C) No. 24213 of 2011; that treating the period of suspension as such, being considered as punishment in addition to the order of removal from service, which amounts to double punishment, is not permissible in service rules; the petitioner is entitled to get the balance 50% of the salary for the period from 02.09.2010 to 30.06.2011 during which he was placed under suspension. He is also entitled to get 50% of back salary from 30.06.2011, the date of dismissal from service, till 112.2012, the date of delivery of judgment, as directed by this Court in the judgment referred to above. But after 112.2012, the date of delivery of the judgment, i.e., 14.12.2012 till the actual reinstatement in service, i.e. 14.01.2013 no salary having been paid to the petitioner, he claims full salary for the said period.