Ananta Sahoo And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8186 Ori

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                        WPC (OAC) No. 2218 of 2016

Ananta Sahoo and others                        .....                       Petitioners
                                                             Mr. S. Patra, Advocate
                                         Vs.
State of Odisha and others                     .....                 Opposite parties
                                                               Mr. M. Balabantaray,
                                                                  Standing Counsel

            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                            ORDER

05.08.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to release the salary (arrear and current) in their favour within a stipulated time.

Mr. S. Patra, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners, who are NMR employees working under the opposite parties, joined in service in the year 1989 and discharged their duties in different projects by absorption under the work charged establishment. When they faced termination, they approached the tribunal by filing different original applications, wherein the learned tribunal vide order dated 30.07.2001 granted status order till 10.08.2001 and, as such, the said status quo order was extended from time to time and finally vide order dated 01.08.2012 in O.A. No.2628 of 2001 and batch of matters, the tribunal passed the following orders:-

"7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, the respondent authorities are directed to allow the applicants to continue in the work charged establishment, if they are continuing as on date in the continuing project, where they were working on the strength of the order of apex Court, this Court or tribunal till the project will continue and in case those projects are to be closed or already closed, on closure of the projects, even if they have been terminated from their services, then also they will be reengaged in any other existing project or in the new projects, wherever work and funds are available. As such on closure of the old projects, if any new project shall be taken up, then the applicants who are continuing or have been retrenched on such closure shall have to be brought to new projects taking into account their seniority in NMR/DLR/work charged establishments in their respective projects, where they were working. So also while continuing in the work charged establishment or otherwise as and when there shall be any vacancy available in the regular (wages) establishment, those work charged employees/workers, on the basis of their seniority in work charged establishment, shall also be brought over to the regular/wages establishment and so far as the NMR/DLR employees are concerned, they will be brought over as against the vacant posts in the work charged establishment.

8. However, the NMR/DLR/work charged employees, who are continuing in their respective (present) Projects on closure of the projects, if any one of them shall not be willing to go to work in the new project or other existing projects, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take steps to retrench them from their services, following due procedure, for which this tribunal expresses no opinion."

It is contended that in view of the aforesaid order, even though the petitioners were discharged their duties by virtue of the status quo order passed by the tribunal, they have not been paid their salaries as admissible to them. Consequentially, the petitioners have filed CONTC No.424 of 2017 alleging non-compliance of the order passed by the tribunal. But instead of giving reply to such contempt petition, counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties, wherein in paragraphs-3 and 4, it has been stated as follows:-

"3. .................. After January, 2002 extension of interim stay order from the Hon'ble Court in support of extension was not received in time in favour of the applicants of the present original application. Hence, the Normal Muster Roll which were to be issued from the 1st date of every month could not be issued for the period thereafter.

4. .................. But the Hon'ble O.A.T. has not issued any direction to quashing the termination/retrenchment order or to release the salaries of the applicants. The applicants of this OA were retrenched from NMR services with effect from 31.07.2001, i.e., prior to pronouncement of the judgment. Hence, the claim of the applicant is liable to be dismissed."

It is further contended that the grounds taken in the

counter affidavit in not paying the salaries of the petitioners is only on the basis of the interim order, which was passed initially on 30.07.2001 till 10.08.2001, and as such, the same having not been communicated to the opposite parties, the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefits. This contention of the opposite parties-authority cannot sustain in the eye of law in view of the fact that the tribunal having been adjudicated the matter finally and decided the same, the benefits of salary for the period the matter was pending before the tribunal by virtue of the interim order of status quo, the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit.

Mr. M. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State argued with vehemence and contended that since final order has been passed by the tribunal, the interim order passed by the tribunal earlier stood vacated, and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to get the salary for the period they rendered service by virtue of the interim order.

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, there is no dispute that by virtue of the interim order passed by the tribunal, the petitioners were continuing in service till 10.08.2001 and, as such, subsequently the said interim order of status quo was extended from time to time and also the same has been taken care of by the tribunal while passing the final order. Therefore, the authority could not have taken the stand that due to non-communication of interim order, the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefits. More so, the final order passed by the tribunal on 01.08.2012 clearly indicate that the tribunal passed order directing the authorities to allow the petitioners to continue in the work charged establishment, if they are continuing as on date in the continuing project, where they were working on the strength of the order of apex Court, this Court or tribunal till the project will continue and in case those projects are to be closed or already closed, on closure of the projects, even if

they have been terminated from their services, then also they will be reengaged in any other existing project or in the new projects, wherever work and funds are available. Therefore, this clearly indicates that by virtue of the status quo order, the petitioners were continuing in service and, as such, their wages have not been paid, and therefore they have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

In such view of the matter, since the petitioners were continuing in service pursuant to the status quo order passed by the tribunal, which has been merged with final order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the tribunal, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the opposite parties-authority to pay the benefits of salary to the petitioners, as claimed in the writ petition, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication/production of certified copy of this order.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order.

Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE