Writ petition filed against the Odisha Administrative Tribunal order dismissing petitioner's seniority claim. Held, since prior O.A. was finally disposed of securing respondent seniority, no infirmity found; petition dismissed for want of merit.
Writ petition dismissed; no further claim on the issues entertained; urgent copy issued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 20051 of 2014
03.03.2016
Heard Mr. K.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.M.Mohanty, learned senio
r counsel for opposite party no.4 and Mr. Manas Pati, learned counsel for opposite party no.5.
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.09.2014 passed by the Od
isha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A.No. 942 of 2012, dismissing the Original Appl
ication of the petitioner.
It appears that the petitioner had earlier approached the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.446
of 1992 with the similar prayer with regard to fixation of inter-se seniority between the app
licant-petitioner vis--vis opposite party no.5 and the learned Tribunal vide order dated 11.12
.1995 had dismissed the Original Application of the petitioner.
In the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has taken note of the dismissal of O.A.No.44
6 of 1992 which had been filed by the applicant- petitioner for similar relief. Relevant findi
ngs of the learned Tribunal is as follows :
It is reiterated that a provisional gradation list dated 27.2.1984 was circulated amongst the
Graduate Laboratory asst. to enable them to file their objection if any to such gradation lis
t. Surprisingly, the applicant did not file any objection even though the respondent No.4 was
placed above him. On being aggrieved by the gradation list dt. 4.6.1990, a representation date
d 11.09.1990 was filed by the applicant and the same was rejected by the authority on 25.03.19
91. Being aggrieved by such rejection, the applicant had approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 4
46/92. The said OA was finally disposed of on 11.12.95 rejecting the claim of the applicant re
garding his seniority over Respondent No.4 and one Sri Parus Ram Das. While dismissing the OA,
this Tribunal observed that (i) Respondent No. 3 & 4 (Resp. No.4 in the present OA) were seni
or to the applicant as in the letter of appointment said Respondents are placed above the appl
icant because of their placement in the merit list and further after termination said responde
nts are adjusted against a higher post i.e. Asst. Chemist whereas the applicant is adjusted in
a lower Post i.e. Graduate Laboratory Asst Whereas the applicant is allowed to draw a lesser
a pay i.e. Rs.400/- in comparison to consolidated pay to Rs.500/- which has been allowed to Re
spondent No. 3 & 4, (ii) Respondent No.3 & 4 (Respondent No.4 in the present O.A.) are regular
ized in the post of Graduate Laboratory Asst. on 1.6.1982 whereas the applicant is regularized
in the said post on a later date i.e. 22.9.1982 and 9iii) As per Govt. order of 1994 where th
ere is no statutory rule to determine the seniority among the several persons selected, their
position in the merit list shall fix the seniority among them.
Admittedly, the order passed in O.A.No. 446 of 1992 has not been challenged in the highe
r forum and has attained finality.
Considering the materials available on record, learned Tribunal has come to find as unde
r :
From the record it appears that in the earlier O.As, there is no specific direction to
the effect that the position of the applicant should be placed above respondents No.4 in the g
radation list. The order of rejection which was passed by the respondent authorities in compli
ance to the order of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1881/02, it is evident that the representation
of the applicant was also rejected by the Govt. in the year 1991. Hence, it is made clear that
Respondent No. 4 is senior to the applicant. On the basis of the gradation list of Asst. Chem
ist the applicant and Respondent No. 4 were promoted vide notification No. 3690 dt. 19.5.2011,
placing the Respondent No. 4 above the applicant which was concurred in by the OPSC. Though t
he present case is filed due to liberty given in OA No. 154/2008, neither any order of OPSC fi
xing the seniority is annexed nor challenged in this case. As the claim in the case has alread
y been settled long since, no further claim on the very same issues shall be entertained.
For the reasons as aforestated, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as
to warrant any interference.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
Issue urgent copy as per rules.
S.C.Parija, J.
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any infirmity in the order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's claim for fixation of seniority based on prior final orders.
Whether the petitioners' writ petition challenging the Tribunal's decision on inter-se seniority has merit.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order where the underlying issues have already been finally settled in earlier proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite Party No.4
Opposite Party No.5
S.C. Parija
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court