NARAYAN PADHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Diploma holder in Electrical Engineering. He was first appointed on 07.11.1979 as a Junior Engineer in the erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board AFR under Jeypore Electrical Circle. Later on, he was posted in Rayagada Electrical Sub-Division and worked at different Sections till 26.07.1988. Thereafter, he was transferred to Jeypore Electrical Division, where he joined as Junior Engineer-II on 01.08.1988 at Koraput and continued till 02.12.1993. While working there, although he was again transferred to Bhubaneswar Electrical Circle and posted at Balipatana Section vide Orissa State Electricity Board office order dated 25.06.1990, the said order was not implemented and subsequently cancelled on 15.09.1990 and he was allowed to continue at Koraput as before for the period from 11.09.1990 till 02.12.1993. But, however, petitioner was debarred from getting his requisite entitlement of salary, incremental benefits, bonus, T.A., house rent for the period from 11.09.1990 till 02.12.1993. As against the same, petitioner made grievance before the authority concerned and the same having not been attended to, he filed OJC No. 5710 of 1993, which was disposed of by order dated 20.12.1993 directing the opposite parties to sanction and disburse all outstanding salary and make up to date the service book of the petitioner within eight weeks. Thereafter, the authority sanctioned the period from 12.09.1990 till 02.12.1993 as compulsory leave by office order dated 27.12.1997, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court in the present writ application.

(2.) Mr. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 20.11993 passed by this Court in OJC No. 5710 of 1993 has not been complied with in its letter and spirit, meaning thereby, the period from 109.1990 till 011993, which has been treated as compulsory leave pursuant to office order dated 27.11997, is not justified. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is entitled to get the entire benefits, for the said period, and his increment should have been re-fixed accordingly and the scale of pay admissible to the post should have been extended to the petitioner forthwith. It is further contended that the order dated 20.11993 passed in OJC No. 5710 of 1993 having not been complied with by the opposite parties within eight weeks, the petitioner had filed another writ petition bearing OJC No. 14902 of 1997 with the prayer to direct opposite party no. 2 therein to clear up the claims of the petitioner, which are reproduced below:-

(3.) Mr. S.S. Parida, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. B.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite party-GRIDCO specifically urged that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper parties, meaning thereby, during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner service has been placed under the administrative control of the distribution company, namely, SOUTHCO, w.e.f. 01.10.2002 and subsequently his service was terminated w.e.f. 19.05.2005. It is further contended that for the selfsame relief, the petitioner cannot approach the Court successively. Therefore, the writ application is also otherwise not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is also contended that the period from 12.09.1990 till 02.12.1993, which relates to after relieve and subsequent joining of the petitioner, was not to be treated as leave, but salary thereof is to be paid provided the service book of the petitioner is made up to date. The petitioner remained unauthorised absent from 12.09.1990 till 02.12.1993 and did not join in the place of posting, unless the service book is regularised, the benefit is not admissible to him. Pursuant to order passed in OJC No. 5710 of 1993 dated 20.12.1993 the petitioner was permitted to submit leave application for regularisation of his long absence from duty, but he did not submit any application. Finally, the authority on considering the materials available on record regularised the services of the petitioner for the period of his long absence, i.e., 12.09.1990 to 02.12.1993 treating the said period as compulsory leave. In view of such position, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in passing the order impugned which does not warrant any interference by this Court at this stage.