STATE OF ODISHA Vs. RAMA KRISHNA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these writ petitions the order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.934 (C) of 2011 and 933(C) of 2011 dated 13.12.2011 are under challenge whereby and where under the Tribunal while allowing the original applications has directed the authorities to take steps to notionally regularize the employees in the appropriate civil posts in the work chargeestablishment retrospectively from the date their juniors in list No.202 dated 6.1.2011 were regularized in the work chargeestablishment, however they are not entitled to any benefits of differential arrear pay in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.M. Jha vs. Union of India reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L & S), Page-399.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the applicants/petitioners in O.A. No.934(C) of 2011 i.e., Mr. Rama Krishna Das and in O.A. No.933(C) of 2011 i.e., Mr. Pradip Ku. Mishra were appointed as DLR on 8.6.1992 and 29.6.1991 respectively but even though they have been engaged prior to 12.4.1993, the cut-off date fixed by the State for taking them in the work chargeestablishment in view of their decision taken by the Finance Department Office Memorandum No.22764/F dated 15.5.1997, their cases for regularization has not been taken yet which led them to approach the Tribunal and the Tribunal after taking into consideration the relevant documents pertaining their date of engagement has passed the order, directing the authorities to take steps to notionally regularize the employees in the appropriate civil posts in the work chargeestablishment retrospectively from the date their juniors were regularized in the work chargeestablishment, however they are not entitled to get benefits of differential arrear pay.

(3.) It is the ground of the State to assail the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal should not have entered into the disputing question of fact but ignoring this aspect of the matter the Tribunal has directed the State authorities for regularization of service under the work chargeestablishment as such according to them the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable and as such the same is fit to be set aside by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.