The denial of full service benefits based on arbitrary grounds, despite legitimate appointment claims, violates principles of fairness and equity in public service employment.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA S. DIXIT,J.

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Common Order dated 26.03.2009, whereby their O.A. Nos. 2984(C)/06, 174(C)/07, 175(C)/07, 176(C)/07, 177(C)/07, 178(C)/07, 179(C)/07, 870(C)/05 having been favoured, the following relief has been accorded by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench:

“8. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances, we direct that the applicants’ service would commence as members of the cadre from today and their seniority would be reckoned in accordance with their merit position in the select prepared by the Orissa Staff Selection Commission. Their pay would be fixed under the ORSP Rules applicable as on date and they shall be given all service benefits like regular Government servants. No arrears would be paid. In so far as inter se seniority between these applicants and those who have been appointed on regular basis in the mean time, that would be governed by the existing rules for determining inter se seniority. The period of service rendered by the applicants from the date of their actual joining till regular appointment shall count as qualifying service for the purpose of pension.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners vehemently submits that once the Tribunal was convinced that the Petitioners gained entry to public service in a normative way, there is no justification for denying the benefit of regular service for the period preceding their approaching the Tribunal. He points out that the Petitioners had staked their claim for appointment pursuant to advertisement dated 26.06.1998 for the post of Junior Assistant; the selection process they underwent and only thereafter, they have been issued appointment orders; their services are eminently required and there is no complaint whatsoever.

3. Learned AGA appearing for the OPs opposes the petitions with equal vehemence contending that the appointment of Petitioners itself was not sustainable; during the relevant period the financial austerity measures were in operation: whatever relief the Tribunal has accorded to them is more than what they are entitled to; the Tribunal has worked out a golden balance between competing interests of Parties and equities in the case; therefore interference of this Court is uncalled for.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

4.1. The Tribunal at Paragraphs-5 & 6 of the impugned order has observed as under:

“5. To know the actual intention of the Government, the relevant file was requisitioned. We have perused the file. We do not find any policy decision to have been taken by the Government. Even the respondents in their counter have taken the stand that a policy decision was taken with regard to contractual appointment. The learned Govt. Advocate sought to explain the use of this expression by referring to the guidelines of the Finance Department and stating that the instructions issued on austerity measures were taken as policy decision of the Government. At pages 56-57 of the note sheet in the file, this question was discussed by the Special Secretary, Finance and it appears that his opinion prevailed and the matter was finally taken to the policy making level for final concurrence. The noting of the Special Secretary, Finance dt.13.8.03 at pages 56-57 is reproduced below:

“It may be recalled that the Finance Department was receiving a large number of representations from candidates who have been sponsored by the Orissa Staff Selection Commission for appointment as Jr. Asst. in various heads of departments. Such candidates were not being issued appointment orders in view of a decision taken by Government to abolish f