Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 152 (ORI)

Dusasan Biswal v. State of Orissa

2012-03-21

M.P.MISRA

body2012
ORDER M.P. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) - The applicant has approached this Tribunal for a direction to the respondents to regularize his services as a Job-Contract employee in the Consolidation Department in order to enable him to get pension and other retiral benefits. 2. The case of the applicant as revealed in the original application is as follows: The applicant was initially appointed as Grade-III Amin by the Deputy Director, Consolidation and Holdings under job-contract establishment, Cuttack and was posted at Chharipur vide appointment order dtd. 7.8.1976 at Annexure-1, In the year 1980 the applicant was promoted to the rank of Grade-II Amin and thereafter to the rank of Grade-I Amin in 1983. Accordingly, his pay was revised. But his pay was not refixed as per the ORSP Rules, 1998, Because of some wrong entries in his service record, he was superseded by some other employees junior to him and such juniors were regularized and have availed of the benefit admissible to regular employees, Taking into consideration the plight of the employees working in the Job-contract establishment, the Govt. of Orissa framed a scheme for gradual absorption of such employees against regular posts in order to enable them to get pension and other retiral benefits. But the benefits of this scheme was not extended to the applicant. His repeated representations in the matter fell on deaf ears. 3. The respondents, in their counter while challenging the maintainability of the O.A., have pleaded as follows: As per the scheme framed by the Govt., the Job-contract employees working in the Settlement and Consolidation departments were regularized in a phased manner subject to availability of posts. But the applicant retired from Govt. service before his term carne, for such regularization. The applicant retired from the Govt. service much prior to the policy of the Govt. framed on 16.3.2005 for regularization of Job-contract employees. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of the Govt. scheme for regularization of services of Job-contract employees working in Settlement and Consolidation organisations. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Govt. service much prior to the policy of the Govt. framed on 16.3.2005 for regularization of Job-contract employees. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of the Govt. scheme for regularization of services of Job-contract employees working in Settlement and Consolidation organisations. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Govt. Advocates, In a decision of a Two-Member Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1549 of 1998 disposed of on 22.8.2007, this Tribunal held as follows: "So, in view of the discussion herein above made and specially keeping in view that the applicant was appointed in the settlement organization initially and thereafter he rendered service till his retirement on 31.8.1998 in the consolidation organization, the question of regularization is not so much important as it is important to consider his case to make post facto regularization for the purpose of only being entitled to pension. While he would not be entitled to any benefit relating to regularization of service for the period up to retirement, he would be made entitled to only pension calculating his service from 19.12.1964 until the date of his retirement. In balance it will be in order if the applicant is at least made entitled to the minimum pension, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." It is also brought to my notice that the Board of Revenue Orissa, Cuttack in the Consolidation Wing have already implemented the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No, 3248(c)/1997 vide their order No, 4629/CH, dated 04.12.2010. In the said order the applicant's services were regularized for one day on the date of his retirement and his pensionary benefits were calculated taking to much of his Job-contract service into consolidation as is required to make him eligible to minimum pension. 4. The aforesaid decision was followed by another decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 3248(c) of 1997 by order dated 17.11.2009. 5. The case of the applicant is identical to the facts of the case referred to above. I see no reason why the applicant should not be granted the same regularization benefits in the consolidation organization on the date or-his retirement. 6. Admittedly the applicant continuously worked in the consolidation organization from 1976 till his retirement on superannuation w.e.f. 5.3.2002. 5. The case of the applicant is identical to the facts of the case referred to above. I see no reason why the applicant should not be granted the same regularization benefits in the consolidation organization on the date or-his retirement. 6. Admittedly the applicant continuously worked in the consolidation organization from 1976 till his retirement on superannuation w.e.f. 5.3.2002. There is, therefore, no reason to deprive him of pensionary benefits which has been granted to employees similarly situated. 7. In view of my above findings I dispose of this O.A. with a direction to respondents to treat the applicant as regularized on the date of his retirement i.e. 5.3.2002 and make him eligible to the pensionary benefits and other retiral dues treating him as a Govt. servant on the date of his retirement, subject, however, to availability of a post. His pensionary dues etc. be calculated by taking so much of his job-contract service into consolidation as is required to make him eligible for pension. If a post is available for his absorption he shall be entitled to minimum pension and other retiral dues as admissible. The respondents are directed to locate a post to adjust the applicant and finalize his claim for pension and other retiral dues within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Send copies. O.A. disposed of.