Orissa High Court
State Of Orissa & Ors vs Amulya Kumar Parida on 16 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
OJC No. 6615 of 2000
State of Orissa & Ors. ..... Petitioner
Mr. S. Rath, ASC
Vs.
Amulya Kumar Parida ..... Opposite Party
None
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE B.P. SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.12.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
07.
2. Heard Mr. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing
for the State-Petitioners.
3. None appears for the opposite party at the time of call.
4. The State and its functionaries have filed this writ petition
assailing the order dated 25.08.1999 passed in O.A. No. 1363 of 1997
under Annexure-1, by which the Orissa Administrative Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar has directed to consider the case of the opposite party
for regularization and that to pay the minimum scale of pay prescribed
for regular employee of his category, within a period of three months.
5. Mr. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for
the State-Petitioners contended that the State-authorities have not
challenged the direction given by the tribunal in paragraph-8 of the
judgment. But, so far as the observation made by the tribunal in
paragraph-10 of the order with regard to payment of minimum scale
of pay admissible to the regular employee of his category, the State is
aggrieved by the same. It is contended that since the service of the
opposite party is not regularized, he is not entitled to minimum scale
of pay prescribed for regular employee.
6. Pursuant to notice issued, though opposite party has already
entered appearance through his counsel, but none is not present at the
time of call. Since the matter is of the year 2000, this Court is not
inclined to grant any further adjournment.
7. Perused the records. As it appears, the opposite party was
initially engaged as NMR Store Assistant on 01.04.1989 under the
Chief Engineer, Subarnarekha Irrigation Project, Baripada and worked
as a Store Assistant, in which he continued on NMR basis without any
break in service in the same establishment. The sole grievance of the
opposite party before the tribunal was that even though he was
performing his duties against regular post of Store Assistant for ten
years on being engaged as NMR worker on daily wage basis, his
service was not regularized nor was he paid the salary as per regular
scales of pay prescribed for such posts, as revised from time to time.
Thereby, he claimed for regularization of service and to fix his pay at
the minimum stage of scale of pay prescribed for the post from his
initial appointment. The tribunal, after due adjudication, in paragraph-
8 directed as follows:-
"8. State Government in the Finance Department issued
the resolution No.22764/F dated 15.5.97 laying down
certain guidelines for absorption of these categories of
employees in regular Government service. In view of the
aforesaid resolution respondent-4 ( Chief Engineer,
Subarnarekha Irrigation Project) is directed to consider
their cases in terms of the aforesaid Resolution, if they are
not disengaged in the meantime and are not found
otherwise ineligible."
8. So far as the scale of pay is concerned, in paragraph-10 of the
judgment, the tribunal directed as follows:-
"10. I find that the aforesaid dictum of the Supreme Court
is fully applicable to these cases of applicants. Respondent-
4 is, therefore , directed to pay the applicants the minimum
of the scale of pay prescribed for regular employees of these
categories within three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order with effect from 1.4.1999 until their
service are regularized, as stated above."
9. Mr. S. Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for
the State-Petitioners contended that, so far as the direction given in
paragraph-8 of the order of the tribunal is concerned, the State has no
grievance. But so far as the direction given in paragraph-10 of the
order with regard to payment of minimum scale of pay prescribed for
regular employee is concerned, it is contended that the opposite party
is not entitled to the same. But fact remains, if the opposite party was
discharging the duty for a quite long period in the same post and such
benefit has been extended by the Government to the similarly situated
persons, in that case, denial of such benefit to the opposite party will
amount to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power by the
authority concerned. Thereby, this Court does not find any error
apparent on the face of order passed by the tribunal by giving
direction in paragraphs-8 and 10 of the order, so as to cause
interference by this Court.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the
same is hereby dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Ashok
(B.P. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
