Samir Dip vs Union Of India And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5652 Ori

                  ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK


                     W.P.(C) No. 27307 of 2019
                                And
                      W.P.(C) No.436 of 2020

      In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227
      of the Constitution of India.
                              ---------------

AFR W.P.(C) No. 27307 of 2019

Samir Dip ..... Petitioner

-Versus-

Union of India and Others ..... Opp. Parties

For Petitioner : M/s D.P.Dhalsamanta, Advocate along with Mr.C.Mohanta,Mr.S.Dhal, Advocates

For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.K.Pattanaik, Sr. Counsel, [O.P. Nos. 4 to 8]

Mr. P.K.Parhi, D.S.G.I.

[O.P. Nos. 2 & 3]

W.P.(C) No. 436 of 2020

Chief General Manager, Telecom ..... Petitioners Orissa Circle & another

-Versus-

      Samir Dip & others                 .....           Opp. Parties
                                         // 2 //




              For Petitioners :    M/s S.K.Pattanaik, Sr. Counsel

For Opp. Parties : Mr. D.P.Dhalasamanta, Advocate

Mr. P.K.Parhi, D.S.G.I.

[O.P. Nos. 2 & 3]

P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

Date of hearing: 10.10.2022: Date of judgment: 18.10.2022

G.SATAPATHY, J. Since the above two writ petitions are filed

against the same judgment and order passed on 27.08.2019

by Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A.

No. 595 of 2017, they were heard together and are disposed

of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner-Samir Dip has filed the writ

petition in W.P.(C) No. 27307 of 2019 seeking to quash

partially the judgment and order passed on 27.08.2019 by

Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.

595 of 2017 to the extent its disallowed the financial benefit // 3 //

as claimed by the petitioner in the Original Application till

the date of grant of such benefit i.e. for the period from

01.04.1995 to 30.09.2014 and further directing opposite

party Nos. 4 to 8 to grant pay scale of regular Group-D with

effect from 01.04.1995 or in the alternative to grant

minimum wages of ED employee for Postal Department for

the aforesaid period, whereas the petitioners Chief General

Manager (CGM), Telecom, Orissa Circle, B.S.N.L and the

General Manager (GM), Sambalpur Telecom District,

B.S.N.L have filed the writ petition in W.P.(C) No. 436 of

2020 seeking to quash the aforesaid order of Central

Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench to the extent of

grant of payment of minimum scale of pay of Group-D staff

for B.S.N.L. to the applicant-Samir Dip as opposite party

No.1 in this writ petition.

3. For the sake of convenience, the writ petition i.e.

W.P.(C) No. 27307 of 2019 (Samir Dip Vrs. Union of India

and others) may be taken as leading case out of these two

writ petitions, the petitioner "Samir Dip" in W.P.(C) No.

27307 of 2019 may hereinafter be referred to as "applicant"

// 4 //

whereas "CGM, Telecom, Orissa Circle and GM Sambalpur

Telecom District" may hereinafter be referred to as

"B.S.N.L. Department" respectively. Since common facts are

involved in both the writ petitions, for better appreciation

and in order to avoid confusion, the facts available in

leading case in W.P.(C) No. 27307 of 2019 are referred to in

this judgment.

3.1. The facts as projected are that the applicant

Samir Dip was provisionally selected and appointed to the

post of ED Telegram Messenger Bargarh HO in the erstwhile

Department of Post India and the applicant joined as such

on 01.01.1991 and the Department of Telegraph was

initially functioning under the control of Department of Post

but the Department of Telegraph was separated from postal

wing and the applicant was directed by the Post Master

Baragarh HO to work in the newly converted District

Telegraph Office and accordingly, the applicant joined on

deputation in the newly converted District Telegraph Office

on 01.04.1995 and has been continuing as such till

07.12.2019. The Post Master, Bargarh H.O. vide Memo // 5 //

dated 09.05.1995 intimated T.M.(O) Telegraph Office,

Bargarh that the working hours of E.D. Messengers are five

hours per day and if they are engaged for eight hours duty,

they are entitled to pay and allowances at the rate of

minimum Telegraph Messenger post. While working as

such, the applicant made a representation to Telecom

District Engineer (TDE), Sambalpur for enhancement of pay

in consonance with working hours of eight hours per day

w.e.f 01.04.1995 like a departmental Telegraph Messenger

and the applicant again submitted representation

ventilating his grievances for non-consideration of his

working hours i.e. eight hours per day which was forwarded

by Telegraph Master in-charge to S.D.O.T., Bargarh

recommending the case of the petitioner for higher

remuneration on the ground that the applicant is

performing eight hours duty per day. After considering the

representation of the application, S.D.O.T., Bargarh vide

letter dated 09.09.1996 forwarded the grievance of the

applicant to the T.D.M., Sambalpur recommending for extra

remuneration on the ground that the applicant services has // 6 //

been utilized as a full time worker. It is also stated by the

applicant in his writ that the T.D.M., Sambalpur vide memo

dated 12.03.1997 fixed the working hours of the applicant

as seven hours per day w.e.f. 01.03.1997 and directed to

pay pro-basis until further order without any prejudice to

their absorption in the department, but the applicant again

submitted a representation on 23.05.1997 to Telecom

District Manager, Sambalpur claiming pay for eight hours

per day as messenger w.e.f. 01.04.1995 and such

representation was forwarded by T.M.(O), Bargarh on

03.06.1997 and the T.M.(O), Bargarh modified the order

dated 12.03.1997 fixing working hours of the applicant for

seven hours per day w.e.f. 01.04.1995. The applicant

further averred in the writ petition that the Telegraph

Master in-charge vide memo dated 04.04.2000 requested

the General Manager, Telecom District for consideration of

absorption of the applicant and fixation of pay and

allowances as per P & T manual. The applicant by another

representation dated 22.05.2000 to General Manager,

Telecom District, Sambalpur prayed for regularization of // 7 //

service and payment for eight hours per day w.e.f.

01.04.1995 but the Superintendent of Post Office,

Sambalpur Division intimated T.M.(O), Bargarh vide letter

dated 26.07.2002 that the applicant was not absorbed in

Telegraph Department which was subsequently converted to

BSNL. The S.D.O., Bargarh vide letter dated 05.07.2013

requested the Senior General Manager, Telecom District,

Sambalpur for supply of guidelines for engagement of ED

Staffs including the applicant working for Telegram Service

as the Telegram Service was going to be discontinued from

15.07.2013 and the G.M.T.D., Sambalpur vide letter dated

03.08.2013 directed that the ED Messenger working at

Bargarh Telegraph Office be engaged for mobile/LL/Misc.

works under S.D.O. Phones, Bargarh as per prevailing

terms and conditions. Finding no alternative, the applicant

again submitted representation on 16.02.2017 to G.M.T.D.,

Sambalpur praying therein to enhance his salary at par with

the then ED Messenger (re-designated as GDS MD/MC) of

Postal Department. According to the applicant he was

entitled to get salary of Group-D employee w.e.f. 01.04.1995 // 8 //

but he was getting Rs.4,200/- per month which is less than

the minimum TRCA of ED MD/MC of Postal Department.

The applicant had also submitted representation to BSNL

Authorities for his absorption to the post Gr-D/MTS in the

department with salary of Group-D employee but in vain

and finding no alternative, he made representation to Chief

Post Master General and Superintendent of Post praying to

cancel his deputation to Telecom Department (BSNL).

3.2 In order to redress his grievance, the applicant

approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack

Bench (hereinafter may be called as 'Tribunal') in O.A.

No.595/2017 in which the BSNL filed their counter

disputing the absorption and grant of Group-D scale to the

applicant.

3.3 In addition to the counter to the writ of the

applicant refuting his claim, the BSNL Department has

assailed the aforesaid finding of the learned Tribunal by

filing separate writ petition in W.P.(C) No.436 of 2020

wherein the Department without disputing the status of the

employment of applicant as ED Messenger on deputation // 9 //

basis asserts that the Post and Telecom Department was

bifurcated into two separate Departments in Telegraph and

Postal wing with effect from the year 1985 and BSNL was

established as a Corporate body of Government of India with

effect from 01.10.2000 and the applicant was receiving

wages as admissible to him before his deputation and he

had raised certain grievances about his working hours as

Messenger, but his wages was fixed at the rate applicable to

seven hours duty per day. Further, the applicant made

representation on 16.03.2001 for permanent absorption in

BSNL but he was not considered eligible for absorption in

BSNL and he continued on deputation in the status of as

extra Departmental Telegraph Messenger as before and after

closure of Telegraph Services on Pan India w.e.f.

15.07.2013, the applicant was engaged as mobile/landline

miscellaneous works as per order dated 03.08.2013 issued

by G.M.T.D., Sambalpur, but the applicant submitted

representation on 16.02.2017 for enhancement of his pay at

par with payment received by extra Departmental Staff of // 10 //

Postal Department and the applicant thereafter approached

the learned Tribunal.

3.4 After considering the relevant materials and

hearing the parties, the Tribunal by an order passed on

27.08.2019 allowed the O.A. in part granting relief to the

applicant for arrear wages in the minimum scale of pay as

applicable to regular Group-D employee with effect from

three years prior to filing of the O.A. till his repatriation to

the Department of Posts. Learned Tribunal also directed the

Department of Posts to take back the applicant and suitably

deploy him as ED/GDS in an office as permissible under the

existing rules and extend consequential benefits as per

provisions of the rules.

3.5 Being aggrieved, the BSNL Department in the

writ petition in W.P.(C) No.436 of 2020 has assailed the

finding of learned Tribunal passed in O.A. No.595 of 2017

on the ground that the learned Tribunal has erroneously

applied the law laid down by the apex Court in State of

Punjab & Others vs. Jagjit Singh & Others; (2017) 1

SCC (L&S) 1 while granting relief to the applicant for arrear // 11 //

wages in the minimum pay scale as applicable to regular

Group-D employee for a period with effect from October,

2014 till his services with the BSNL Department.

Feeling aggrieved, the applicant-Samir Dip in

W.P.(C) No.27307 of 2019 has partly challenged the findings

of the Tribunal to the extent as it disallowed the financial

benefits to him with effect from 01.04.1995 till 30.09.2014.

4. Mr.D.P.Dhalasamanta, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner-applicant in W.P.(C) No.27307

of 2019 -cum- O.P. No.1 in W.P.(C) No.436 of 2020

submitted that the applicant was working as ED Messenger

on deputation in the Department of Telecom which was

subsequently separated from the Department of Posts as

BSNL and although number of representations were made

by the applicant to the BSNL authorities for absorption but

the same were not having been considered, the applicant

approached the learned Tribunal for the relief of absorption

with consequential financial benefits and the Tribunal

having taking into consideration the relevant facts and the

law laid down in Jagjit Singh(Supra) came to hold that the // 12 //

principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable to the

case of the applicant and accordingly directed for grant of

financial relief to the applicant as applicable to regular

Group-D employee for the period from October, 2014 to till

his engagement in the BSNL Department, but such finding

of the learned Tribunal limited for a small period is

erroneous one as the applicant was working in the BSNL

Department on deputation since 01.04.1995. It is further

contended that the learned Tribunal has erroneously came

to hold that since the applicant has approached the learned

Tribunal in 2017, the Tribunal cannot allow such financial

benefit from the date as claimed by him in the O.A. It is also

submitted that the Post Master, Bargarh by way of

Annexure-5 has intimated the T.M.(O) in-charge Telegraph

Office, Bargarh that the working hours of ED Messengers

are five hours per day and if they are engaged for eight

hours duty on daily wages basis, they are entitled to get pay

and allowances at the rate of minimum scale of Telegraph

Messenger Post and after conversion of Telegraph Office, the

Messengers who were working eight hours per day are // 13 //

thereby, entitled to get the pay and allowances at the rate of

minimum scale of Telegraph Messenger Post. It is also

submitted that the authority concerned after taking into

consideration the representation of the applicant had

recommended to higher authority vide Annexures-6 and 7

for grant of pay and allowances as admissible to ED

Telegram Messengers. It is also vociferously contended by

Mr. Dhalasamanta, learned counsel for the petitioner-

applicant that the applicant was duly discharging the duty

of a regular Extra Departmental Telegraph Messenger for

eight hours and more on daily basis, which is clearly

discernable from the letter under Annexures-7 and 10 and,

therefore, the applicant was entitled to the pay and

allowances of Group-D or ED Telegram Messengers on the

principle of equal pay for equal work and his service desired

to be regularized in BSNL but the learned Tribunal has

erroneously refused to grant the relief on regularization of

service to the applicant and disallowed the financial benefit

w.e.f. 01.01.1995 till October, 2014 as Group-D employee. It

is further contended that the Tribunal has neither // 14 //

committed any error in applying the principle of equal pay

for equal work to the petitioner-applicant nor misapplied the

law laid down in Jagjit Singh(Supra), but the learned

Tribunal has fallen an error while extending the relief to the

applicant for a limited period despite the fact that the

applicant had performed the duty of ED Telegram

Messenger. While summing of his argument, Mr.

Dhalasamanta, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant

submitted that since the learned Tribunal's order so far as it

relates to grant of financial benefit for a limited period only

instead of whole period of deputation to the applicant needs

interference of this Court by way of this writ petition

directing the concerned authorities to pay the financial

benefits for the entire period or in the alternative to grant

minimum wages of ED employee of Postal Department w.e.f.

01.04.1995 to 30.09.2014 by suitably modifying the order of

the learned Tribunal.

5. Mr. S.K. Pattanaik, learned Senior Counsel for

the opposite party nos. 4 to 8 in W.P.(C) No.27307 of 2019

and for the BSNL Department-petitioners in W.P.(C) No.436 // 15 //

of 2020 specifically contended that the applicant being an

employee of Department of Posts is not entitled to any

financial benefit in the minimum scale of pay of Group-D

employee of Telecom Department but the learned Tribunal

has erroneously applied the law to grant such relief to the

applicant. Mr. S.K. Pattanaik, learned Senior Counsel by

placing heavy reliance on Annexure-5 to W.P.(C) No.436 of

2020 submitted that after closure of Telegram Services w.e.f.

15.07.2013 the GMTD, Sambalpur vide its order dated

03.08.2013 directed the applicant who was working as E.D.

Messenger at Bargarh Telegraph Office to be engaged as

Mobile/LL/Misc. works under SDO Phones, Bargarh which

itself goes a long way to say that the applicant was never

employed as Group-D nor was his post attached with duty

and responsibility of Group-D employee of Telecom

Department. It is also contended that the applicant was

admittedly working as ED Telegram Messenger on

deputation basis in Telegraph Office, Bargarh and after

formation of BSNL, he being directed to be engaged for

Mobile/LL/Misc. works can never be said to have // 16 //

discharged the duty of Group-D employee and he, thereby,

is not entitled to any financial benefit of Group-D employee

but the learned Tribunal has committed error in directing

payment of arrear financial benefit to the applicant in the

minimum scale of pay of Group-D employee by misapplying

the law laid down in Jagjit Singh(Supra) wherein at

Paragraph-42, the apex Court has observed that the claim

raised by such employee was premised on the ground that

the duties and responsibilities rendered by them were

against the same post for which a higher pay scale was

being allowed in other Departments, but in the present case,

the applicant had neither discharged the Group-D employee

nor was he holding any Group-D post in his original

Department, rather the employee was discharging the duty

as a ED Messenger in the Postal Department and he is

thereby not entitled to any higher financial benefits as

attached to his original post.

In support of his contention, Mr. S.K. Pattanaik,

learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decisions in

Ratilal B. Soni & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Others;

// 17 //

1990 STPL 1045 SC, Kunal Nanda vs. Union of India &

Another; 2000 STPL 5556 SC and Orissa University of

Agriculture and Technology vs. Manoj Kumar Mohanty;

2003 STPL 7546 SC. In relying upon the aforesaid

decisions and on the basis of his submissions, Mr. S.K.

Pattanaik, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the

learned Tribunal has not only committed error in

appreciating the fact but also has misapplied the law and it

thereby, fallen in error in holding that the applicant is

entitled to financial benefits of a Group-D employee for the

period with effect from October, 2014 till his repatriation to

the original Department of Posts and learned Senior

Counsel, accordingly, prayed for interference of this Court

by way of invoking the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India in W.P.(C) No.436 of 2020 to

quash the impugned order passed on 27.08.2019 by learned

Tribunal in O.A. No.595 of 2017 and consequently, thereby

to allow the writ petition in W.P.(C) No.436 of 2020.

This Court carefully considered the submissions

advanced by Mr. Dhalasamanta, learned counsel for the // 18 //

petitioner-applicant in W.P.(C) No.27307 of 2019-cum-

opposite party no.1 in W.P.(C) No.436 of 2020 and Mr. S.K.

Pattanaik, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party

nos.4 to 8 in W.P.(C) No.27307 of 2019 and petitioners-

BSNL Department in W.P.(C) No.436 of 2020 and perused

the record. Pleadings having been exchanged between the

parties and with the consent of the parties, these writ

petitions are being disposed of finally at the stage of

admission.

6. After bestowing an anxious and careful

consideration to the rival submissions upon reference to the

facts involved in these writ petitions, the undisputed facts

as emerged are that the applicant was initially provisionally

selected as well as appointed to the post of ED Telegram

Messenger, Bargarh Head Office under Postal Department

and consequently he was directed to work in Telegraph

Office, Bargarh on deputation basis with effect from

01.04.1995 and at the time of appointment of applicant, the

Post and Telecom Department was functioning as a single

Department under Central Government and the Telegraph // 19 //

Department was subsequently converted into BSNL and the

Telegram Services was closed on Pan India basis with effect

from 15.07.2013. It is stated here that the applicant has

also claimed for regularization of his service on account of

his long spell of work in BSNL. In this regard, the Tribunal

by its order has refused to grant any relief to the applicant

but such findings of the Tribunal does not require any

interference inasmuch as the applicant was working as ED

Telegram Messenger purely on deputation basis and he was

appointed as such by the Postal Department. Further,

neither there was any pleading nor was any document

produced before the Tribunal as well as before this Court

indicating about absorption of any other employee of Postal

Department deputed to BSNL on regular basis. Learned

Tribunal has rightly distinguished the judgment relied on by

the applicant in the case of Rajendra Kumar Nayak Vrs.

OMC Limited and others; (2017) (II) ILR 912 while

negating the claim of the applicant for regularization of

service in BSNL. The undisputed fact is that the applicant

was working in BSNL on deputation basis and thereby, he // 20 //

does not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation

post. In Ratilal (supra) which is relied on by the BSNL

Department, the Apex Court has concluded that the

appellants being on deputation could be reverted to their

parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be

absorbed on the deputation post. It is, therefore, clear that

the claim for regularization of service by the applicant in

BSNL has rightly been negated by the Tribunal.

7. Reverting back to the relief granted to the

applicant by the learned Tribunal, it appears that the

learned Tribunal has applied the principle of equal pay for

equal work and relied upon the judgment of Jagjit

Singh(supra) in granting the relief of financial benefit to the

applicant in the pay scale which is applicable to regular

Group-D employee. In this regard, there appears no doubt

while granting financial relief to the applicant, the Tribunal

has applied the principle of equal pay for equal work which

is not always easy to apply. The applicant was neither

employed as Group-D post in BSNL nor was there any

pleadings or averment made by him to have discharged the // 21 //

duty of Group-D employee in BSNL. The applicant had also

not made it clear the duties and responsibility attached to

any Group-D employee either in the Original Application or

in the present writ petition. No matter the applicant has

claimed for financial benefits at the rate in minimum scale

of pay of Telegram Messenger as Group-D post but the

duties and responsibilities attached to any Group-D post in

BSNL has never been spelt out by the applicant nor was it

established that he was discharging the duties and

responsibilities of a Group-D employee in BSNL

Department. Learned Tribunal had taken Annexure-7 and

10 into consideration while granting relief to the applicant

but, by Annexure-7 the Telegraph Master in-charge had

recommended to the S.D.O.T, Bargarh Telecom to consider

the case of the applicant for higher remuneration and by

Annexure-10, the Telecom District Manager, Sambalpur had

fixed the duty hours of the applicant in the Telegraph Office,

Bargarh @ seven hours per day with effect from 01.04.1995.

It cannot be disputed that Annexure-7 being purely

recommendatory in nature, it cannot be said that the // 22 //

decision was taken by the authorities to enhance the

remuneration of the applicant. Further, Annexure-5 to

W.P.(C) No. 436 of 2020 discloses that ED Messengers

working at Bargarh Telegraph Office were proposed to be

engaged for Mobile/LL/Misc. works under SDO Phones,

Bargarh as per the prevailing terms and conditions and the

aforesaid letter was issued at the time of closure of Telegram

services with effect from 15.07.2013 and the applicant being

a ED Messenger working at Bargarh Telegraph Office had

never challenged the same till filing of the Original

Application in the year 2017 for grant of pay and allowances

akin to Group-D employee. While granting relief of financial

benefit of Group-D employee to the applicant, the judgment

passed by the Apex Court in Jagjit Singh(supra) was relied

on by the Tribunal, but the Apex Court in Paragraph-60 has

stated that for application of principle of equal pay for equal

work in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage

employees, ad-hoc employees, employees appointed on

casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole

factor that requires determination is whether the concerned // 23 //

employees (before the Court) were rendering similar duties

and responsibilities as were being discharged by regular

employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. In

this case, the applicant was neither the regular employee of

the BSNL Department nor was holding the same Group-D

post or any corresponding post nor was it averred in the writ

petition or O.A. that the applicant was rendering similar

duties and responsibilities of Group-D employee. Further, in

Jagjit Singh(supra), the Apex Court had proceeded to

summarized in Paragraph-42 the parameters under which

the principle of equal pay for equal work can be applied. For

better appreciation, Paragraph-42(i) of Jagjit Singh(supra)

is extracted below:-

"The 'onus of proof', of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish, that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post)see-the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology case 10, Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh V. Manju Mathur 15, the Steel Authority of India Limited case 16, and the National Aluminum Company Limited case 18)."

// 24 //

It is clear beyond doubt that it was the duty of

the applicant in this case to establish that the post occupied

by him requires him to discharge equal work for equal value

as the reference post of Group-D employee in BSNL. At the

cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the duties and

responsibilities attached to Group-D post in BSNL were

never been disclosed by the applicant in this case nor had

the applicant established that he was discharging the duties

and responsibilities of Group-D post either in his parent

Department or in the deputation Department.

8. Further, in Orissa University of Agriculture

and Technology(supra), the Apex Court at paragraph-14

has held as under:-

"In the absence of necessary averments and materials placed on record, there was no scope to give direction as is done by the High Court in the impugned order. The burden was on the respondent to establish that he has a right to equal pay on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' relying on Article 14 of the Constitution that having not been done, the respondent was not entitled for the direction to get regular pay scale w.e.f. September, 1997.

// 25 //

9. A careful consideration of the facts and law

discussed hereinabove, it emerges that the applicant was

initially recruited by the Department of Post which is his

parent department and he was directed to work as ED

Telegram Messenger in Telegraph Department which was

subsequently converted to BSNL, but it was never

established by him that he was discharging the duties and

responsibilities attached to Group-D post in the BSNL but

in absence of any necessary averments and materials on

record, the Tribunal has fallen in error in granting relief to

the applicant by its order passed on 27.08.2019 holding the

applicant to be entitled for arrear wages in the minimum

pay scale which is applicable to regular Group-D employee

from October, 2014 till he works under BSNL Department

by applying the principle set out by the Apex Court in Jagjit

Singh(supra) which was not applicable to the case of the

applicant and the entitlement of the applicant is only on the

basis of Annexure-5 to W.P.(C) No. 436 of 2020. The above

exposition of facts and discussion herein makes it clear that

the order passed on 27.08.2019 by the Tribunal in O.A. No. // 26 //

595 of 2017 is unsustainable in the eye of law and is hereby

quashed.

10. In the result, while dismissing W.P.(C) No. 27307

of 2019 this Court allows the writ petition in W.P.(C) No.

436 of 2020 but in the circumstances, there is no order as

to costs.

..............................

                                            G.SATAPATHY,
                                             JUDGE

DR. B.R.SARANGI, J.        I agree.


                                           ..............................
                                           DR. B.R.SARANGI,
                                                JUDGE




          Orissa High Court, Cuttack
          The 18th October, 2022, Kishore
 // 27 //