State of Orissa and Others Vs. Harihar Satpathy and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3659 of 1998
Petitioner: State of Orissa and Others
Respondent: Harihar Satpathy and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3659 of 1998
Judges: V.N. KHARE & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 27, 2000
Head Note:
Constitution
Article 136 – Special leave – Employees of Work Charged Establishment of State – Retiring on various dates – For benefit of pension CAT approached for notional absorption in regular service – State not filing any counter affidavit – Application allowed by Tribunal – In appeal, State pleading against. Held that since the State has not contested the matter before Tribunal, question of law left open and appeal dismissed. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Respondent No. 1 herein, was appointed as Chowkidar in the Work Charged Establishment of Government of Orissa on 1.7.1961. Respondent No. 2 was also appointed in the same capacity on 22.12.1965. Respondent No. 3 joined as Mechanic in the Work Charged Establishment in the Irrigation Department of Government of Orissa on 6.11.1961. Subsequently, they retired on different dates viz., Respondent No. 1 in the year 1978, Respondent No. 2 in the year 1985 and Respondent No. 3 in the year 1986. Subse-quently, the aforesaid Respondents filed an Original Application before the Orissa State Administrate Tribunal with a prayer that they ought to have been absorbed in the regular service in view of the resolution dated 22.1.1965 and if they are notionally absorbed they will be entitled to pension. It appears that the Appellants neither contested the said application nor filed any counter affidavit. With the result, the Tribunal accepted the case of the Respondents and directed the Appellants to give pension. It is against the said judgment the Appellants are in appeal before us.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellants urged that the posts occu-pied by the Respondents were not brought over to the regular establishment as they were not of permanent nature and, there-fore, they could not be granted pension. In the present case, the Appellants did not choose to file any counter affidavit before the Tribunal. The Respondents being very petty employees are not represented before us. Therefore, we are not inclined to inter-fere with the matter leaving the question of law open to be decided in an appropriate case. In view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the appeal. No costs.
1. Respondent No. 1 herein, was appointed as Chowkidar in the Work Charged Establishment of Government of Orissa on 1.7.1961. Respondent No. 2 was also appointed in the same capacity on 22.12.1965. Respondent No. 3 joined as Mechanic in the Work Charged Establishment in the Irrigation Department of Government of Orissa on 6.11.1961. Subsequently, they retired on different dates viz., Respondent No. 1 in the year 1978, Respondent No. 2 in the year 1985 and Respondent No. 3 in the year 1986. Subse-quently, the aforesaid Respondents filed an Original Application before the Orissa State Administrate Tribunal with a prayer that they ought to have been absorbed in the regular service in view of the resolution dated 22.1.1965 and if they are notionally absorbed they will be entitled to pension. It appears that the Appellants neither contested the said application nor filed any counter affidavit. With the result, the Tribunal accepted the case of the Respondents and directed the Appellants to give pension. It is against the said judgment the Appellants are in appeal before us.
2. Learned Counsel for the Appellants urged that the posts occu-pied by the Respondents were not brought over to the regular establishment as they were not of permanent nature and, there-fore, they could not be granted pension. In the present case, the Appellants did not choose to file any counter affidavit before the Tribunal. The Respondents being very petty employees are not represented before us. Therefore, we are not inclined to inter-fere with the matter leaving the question of law open to be decided in an appropriate case. In view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the appeal. No costs.
