JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J.- In this writ application the Petitioner challenges the final gradation list (Annexure-14) issued under Order Dated 24.11.2006 by Opp. Party No.1-Cuttack Development Authority (in short 'CDA') and further prays to make the provisional gradation list (Annexure-7) final maintaining position of the Petitioner at S1.No.7 of the gradation list of Junior Assistants. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that on his application, the Petitioner was engaged to do office work on daily wage basis on payment of Rs.20 per day vide order of Opp. Party No.1 through its Finance and Accounts Member vide letter dated 15.03.1989 under Annexure-1 though the Petitioner was sponsored by the Balashrama and on the very day, i.e., 15.03.1989 the Petitioner reported for duty. Annexure-3 is said to be the absentee statement indicating the attendance of the Petitioner on duty for the month of March, 1989. While the Petitioner was working on such daily wage basis, Opp. Party No.1 in its 38th meeting dated 10.12.1994 decided to regularise the services of DLR employees with certain stipulations and accordingly issued order No.12326 dated 19.12.1994 vide. Annexure-5 regularising the services of DLR employees working under different categories and gradation, who have completed services for one year or more as on 30.11.1994. Accordingly, nineteen DLR employees including the Petitioner were regularised as Junior Assistants under Opp. Party No.1 vide Order Dated 19.12.1994 under Annexure-6. Vide office order No.6114 dated 16.3.2000, Opp. Party No.1 prepared provisional gradation list (Annexure-7), wherein the Petitioner was placed at S1.No.7 whereas Opp. Party Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were placed at S1.No.8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 respectively. Thereafter vide order of Opp. Party No.1 dated 23.03.2000 under Annexure-8 the Petitioner along with some others was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on ad hoc basis for one year and the Petitioner joined the post on the same day and his joining report was accepted. In the meantime, the present Opp. Party No.7 challenged the provisional/gradation list as well as the promotion order of the Petitioner by filing OJC No.4988 of 2000 wherein the Petitioner was impleaded as Opp. Party No.5 and one Yashobanta Das was Opp. Party No.4. The present Opp. Party No.5-Smt.Manasi Baral was impleaded as Opp. Party No.6 in the said Writ Petition. It is further stated that in the said Writ Petition, Cuttack Development Authority-Opp. Party No.5 and one Yashobanta Das was Opp. Party No.4. The present Opp. Party No.5-Smt.Manasi Baral was impleaded as Opp. Party No.6 in the said Writ Petition. It is further stated that in the said Writ Petition, Cuttack Development Authority-Opp. Party No.1 filed a counter affidavit contending that the present Petitioner worked under it earlier to the present Opp. Party No.7 (Petitioner in OJC No. 4988 of 2000) and as such deserved to be ranked above him and that it had taken into consideration the date of engagement of the employees while preparing the provisional gradation list irrespective of the mode or manner of their engagement. However instead of deciding on merits, this Court disposed of the aforesaid writ application with a direction to Opp. Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner therein (present Opp. Party No.7) within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, the final gradation list under Annexure-14 has been issued by Opp. Party No.1 degrading the Petitioner from S1.No.7 to S1.No.14 by placing Opp. Party No.5 to 9 above the Petitioner at S1.No.7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 respectively even though they had joined in the office of C.D.A. respectively on 11.01.1990, 07.03.1990, 02.12.1990, 16.09.1991 and 18.11.1991 and had been placed below the Petitioner in the provisional gradation list. It is therefore, contended on behalf of the Petitioner that irrespective of the fact that he is engaged on daily wage basis under Opp. Party No.1 while sponsored through the Balashrama and that he was directly paid by Opp. Party No.1 from 21.08.1992, his seniority should be counted from the date of his initial appointment i.e., on 15.3.1989. 3. The authorities of the C.D.A. (Opp. Party Nos.1, 2 and 3) have filed a counter affidavit stating that the C.D.A. engaged some of the employees on daily wage/NMR basis and were making payment directly to them and some of the employees were engaged being sponsored through Utkal Balashrama. Employees sponsored through the Balashrama were being paid their wages through the Balashrama for disbursement to them for which C.D.A. was paying 5% administrative and supervision charges to the Balashrama. The Utkal Balashrama was also being supplied with the absentee statement of the sponsored employees. A few sponsored employees were also receiving salary directly from the C.D.A. Sri Yashobanta Das is one of such employees. The Utkal Balashrama was also being supplied with the absentee statement of the sponsored employees. A few sponsored employees were also receiving salary directly from the C.D.A. Sri Yashobanta Das is one of such employees. Subsequently, employees sponsored through Balashrama were allowed to receive wages directly from C.D.A. on the consent of the Balashrama. The DLR employees working in different categories and grades haying been regularised vide office Order Dated 19.12.1994 (Annexure-5), provisional inter se seniority list was drawn up on the basis of their date of engagement by the C.D.A. irrespective of the source of engagement. Admittedly the Petitioner was engaged through the Balashrama with effect from 15.03.1989 and getting his wages through the Balashrama till 20.08.1992. Thereafter, on his representation and with the consent of Balashrama, he was allowed to receive wages directly from the C.D.A. with effect from 21.08.1992. As per direction of this Court in OJC No.4988 of 2000, the Vice Chairman of the C.D.A. after giving opportunity to the affected employees and on consideration of the materials available on record decided to consider the seniority of DLR employees with effect from the date of receipt of wages by them directly from C.D.A. and accordingly the final gradation list (Annexure-14) was published on 24.11.2006. It is contended that the revision of the provisional gradation list on the basis of the dates of receipt of direct payment by the DLR employees from the C.D.A. cannot be said to be improper or unjust. The Petitioner received wages directly from C.D.A. with effect from 21.08.1992, i.e., subsequent to the dates of receipt of direct payment by other private Opp. Parties and, therefore, his seniority has been reckoned from the aforesaid date of receipt of direct payment. It is stated that the provisional gradation list, which was prepared on the basis of initial date of engagement of DLR employees was a tentative one as per the decision taken by the authorities, who have every right to revise the gradation list on the basis of a sound principle, which has been adopted in this case in finalising the gradation list vide Annexure-14. 4. Opp. Party Nos.6 and 7 have filed two separate counter affidavits taking almost identical stands. It is stated by them that Utkal Balashrarna, Cuttack is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Petitioner was an employee of Balashrama. 4. Opp. Party Nos.6 and 7 have filed two separate counter affidavits taking almost identical stands. It is stated by them that Utkal Balashrarna, Cuttack is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Petitioner was an employee of Balashrama. The Finance and Accounts member of the C.D.A. vide letter No.3689 dated 16.3.1989(Annexure-A/7) requested the Superintendent of Utkal Balashrama to sponsor some candidates to do casual work under the C.D.A. on payment of daily wages of Rs.20. The arrangement indicated in the said letter was that the C.D.A. will forward the monthly attendance chart of the candidates every month to Utkal Balashrama for counter signature whereafter the bill for wages would be passed by the C.D.A. arid the amount would be handed over to Balashrama for- disbursement to the respective candidates and for this the C.D.A. was prepared to pay 5% as administrative charges to the Balashrama. It is alleged in the counter affidavits of Opp. Party Nos.6 and 7 that the appointment letter filed by the Petitioner vide Annexure-1 is forged one and has not actually been issued to the Petitioner from the C.D.A. Similarly, it is also stated that the joining report of the Petitioner vide Annexure-2 is also a fabricated document. Lastly, it is stated that the Petitioner was sponsored by Utkal Balashrama for doing some casual work in the C.D.A from 21.12.1990 and on his own representation and with the consent of Balashrama authorities he received his daily wages directly from the C.D.A. from 21.08.1992. It is, therefore, contended that the private Opp. Parties having been engaged directly by the C.D.A. since 1990, the Petitioner's claim of seniority over them is not sustainable. 5. With regard to the Petitioner's initial engagement, the C.D.A. has not disputed the genuineness of Annexures-1 and 2 filed by the Petitioner. On the contrary, in paragraph-6 of its counter affidavit it is clearly admitted that the Petitioner was engaged through the Balashrama with effect from 15.3.1989 and getting his wages through Balashrama and that with effect from-21.08.1992 he got direct payments from the C.D.A. In such view of the mater, the contention raised on behalf of the private Opp. Party Nos. 6 and 7 questioning the genuineness of Annexures-1 and 2 or stating that the Petitioner was not engaged since 15.3.1989 cannot be accepted. Party Nos. 6 and 7 questioning the genuineness of Annexures-1 and 2 or stating that the Petitioner was not engaged since 15.3.1989 cannot be accepted. The only question that arises for consideration is whether, irrespective of the mode of engagement, the Petitioner can be said to have been employed by the C.D.A. from 15.03.1989 or he was an employee of Balashrama, which was acting as a service provider to the C.D.A. and the Petitioner, who was sponsored by it to work under the C.D.A. was its own employee. In case it would be held that the Petitioner was appointed/engaged by the C.D.A. to render service to the C.D.A. since 15.03.1989 irrespective of the manner of payment of his salary/wages, he would be considered to be senior to the private Opp. Parties, who admittedly were engaged in the year 1990. 6. There is nothing on record to show that the C.D.A. engaged the Balashrama as a service provider to deploy its own staff/ employees to the C.D.A. for performing any service, nor is there any acceptable material that the Petitioner was an employee of the Balashrama. Admittedly, the Petitioner was only sponsored by the Balashrama and was engaged by the C.D.A. since 15.03.1989. Since he was sponsored by the Balashrama his wages and the wages of similar other persons, who have been sponsored by the Balashrama, were being placed with the Balashrama for disbursement to them. For performing the work of disbursal of the wages the Balashrama was being paid by the C.D.A. 5% of the amount of wages. It is also not a case where the Balashrama was deducting any amount from the wages/remuneration of the Petitioner or other similarly sponsored employees. The mere arrangement of disbursement of the wages of the Petitioner through the Balashrama as because he was sponsored by the Balashrama would not be sufficient to say that the Petitioner was not the DLR employee of the C.D.A. Rather it is admitted case of the parties that while continuing as a DLR employee, the Petitioner directly received payment from the C.D.A. at a later date without any fresh order of engagement or appointment by the C.D.A, Therefore, irrespective of the manner of payment of wages to the Petitioner, the Petitioner must be treated to be a DLR employee of the C.D.A. continuing since the date of his initial engagement, i.e., 15.03.1989. In the aforesaid circumstances, if the C.D.A. authorities decided to consider the inter se seniority of the DLR employees taking into consideration the period of their past service prior to the date of their regularisation, it would have been just and proper to take into consideration the initial date of appointment of all the DLR employees, irrespective of whether they were paid their wages directly by the C.D.A. or through their sponsoring agency, as has been done while preparing the provisional gradation list vide Annexure- 7. Therefore, the decision of the C.D.A. authorities to revise the provisional gradation list and make it final by taking into account the date of receipt of wages by the DLR employees directly from the C.D.A. must be held to be arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and unjust. We therefore, quash the final gradation list under Annexure-14 and direct the C.D.A. authorities to prepare the gradation list of DLR Junior Assistants, who were initially appointed/engaged on casual or DLR basis by taking into account their past service as DLR from the date of their initial appointment/engagement. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. I agree.