Back
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Jamini Mohan Mohanty – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner-cum-Secretary in Water Resources Department, Bhubaneswar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. chronology of the petitioner’s employment and service history. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments and claims made by the petitioner. (Para 6) |
| 3. ratio decidendi regarding regularization of appointments. (Para 7) |
| 4. court's observations on the application of rule 14. (Para 8) |
| 5. final ruling and order regarding pensionary benefits. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Jamini Mohan Mohanty challenging the order dated 17.07.2014 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 805 (C) of 2009 in dismissing the Original Application.
2. Heard Mr. Laxmikanta Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Partha Sarathi Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. The Original Application was filed by the petitioner to quash the order dated 24.03.2009 passed by the Chairman-in-charge of Arbitration Tribunal, Odisha in which the petitioner was reverted to the post of Junior Assistant and was relieved from the Tribunal due to his reversion, with a further prayer to the opposite parties to allow him to continue in the post of Section Officer, Level-II of the Arbitration Tribunal,
Administrative regularization of service cannot undermine seniority established by due process, especially following considerable delay in objections. Proper justification required for reversion unde....
The failure to implement earlier directions gave rise to a fresh cause of action, and discrimination in the regularization process is not justified.
All similarly situated employees are entitled to identical promotion benefits unless exceptions like delay or acquiescence apply, emphasizing the need for equal treatment under service law.
Tribunal orders for regularization must be implemented within specified timelines despite affirmed appeals; antedate appointments notionally without stay interference.
Regularization for promotion posts requires prior service in the lower cadre, and claims of discrimination must be substantiated by participation in relevant judicial proceedings.
The court ruled that the failure to properly consider the D.E.O.'s inquiry report regarding attendance invalidated the rejection of service regularisation, affirming rights based on continuity of ser....
Deferring promotion regularization pending revised rules is discriminatory under Articles 14 & 16 when existing rules were applied to similarly situated employees, mandating parity and consideration ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
