The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an Orissa Administrative Tribunal order that allowed ad-hoc service counting for senior scale placement but limited arrear pay to three years, citing a Supreme Court precedent.
The writ petition challenging the Tribunal order allowing ad-hoc service for senior scale placement is dismissed.
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. 22795 of 2015
10.03.2016 Heard Mr. S.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.12.20
14 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A.No. 1885 of 2012, allowing
the Original Application of the petitioner and directing the opposite parties-respondents to
count the ad-hoc service of the applicant-petitioner from his initial date of ad-hoc appointm
ent for placement in the senior scale/career advancement and to ante the date of grant of seni
or scale/career enhancement scale accordingly. The learned Tribunal has also directed the oppo
site parties to grant subsequent promotion as due and admissible to the applicant as per law.
However, learned Tribunal has confined the claim of arrear pay for the period of three years p
rior to the filing of the Original Application, in view of the judgment of the apex Court in U
nion of India & others Vrs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 765.
Considering the submissions made, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so
as to warrant any interference.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
S.C.Parija, J.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal allowing ad-hoc service for senior scale placement without arrear pay beyond three years warrants interference.
Whether the claim for arrear pay for the entire period prior to judicial intervention is sustainable.
Whether any infirmity exists in the Tribunal's decision limiting arrear pay for three years.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite parties-respondents
S.C. Parija
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court