Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Narayan Gope Vs. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and Two ors.

Narayan Gope vs Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and Two ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Orissa Decided Sep 27, 2007
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/535770

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Orissa High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LABOUR & SERVICES Pay Scale:[Tarun Chatterjee & R.M. Lodha,JJ] Fixation - Orissa Service Code (1939), Rule 74(b) Promotion - Government servant, by virtue of Rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - Circular Dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier Circular Dated 18.6.198...

Key legal issue
Service
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Narayan Gope

Respondent

Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and Two ors.

Legal References

Reported In
2007(II)OLR764

Excerpt

- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. - order 1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the opposite parties-corporation......learned counsel for the opposite parties-corporation.2. the petitioner, who is working as a crane operator in the forest development corporation ltd., has filed this writ petition with a prayer to regularize his services from 15.06.1983.3. as the fact goes, according to the petitioner, the ofdc (o.p. no. 1) in the year 1980 executed an agreement with the employees' union under the provisions of the orissa forest corporation ltd. daily rated/ consolidated rated workers service regulations rules, 1980, wherein it was agreed that o.p. no. 1 will introduce a rule and the same shall form part of the agreement. accordingly, the rule was framed and accepted by the parties. in terms of the agreement, the petitioner has been regularized on and from 6.6.1989 vide annexure-3. according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner should have been regularized from 15.06.1983 instead of 06.06.1989 as per annexure-1, which is the orissa forest corporation ltd. daily rate/consolidated rate workers service regulation rules, 1989. learned counsel for the petitioner refers to clause 3 of the said rules which provides as follows:the daily rated/consolidate rated workers working in jobs of permanent or continuous nature in any establishment, unit or branch of the corporation on completion of two years of continuous service shall be absorbed in posts in regular establishment on the basis of the recommendation of the committee constituted under rule 3(b).4. according to the petitioner, he is entitled to be regularized from 15.06.1983 as by then he had completed two years of service.5. a counter affidavit has been filed by the o.p. no. 1-corporation. the appointment of the petitioner on 15.06.1981 is not disputed in the counter affidavit. but a stand is taken in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that generally regularization is being made against vacant posts. the selection committee selected 411 field assistants and 205 class-iv employees. the board created only 400.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the opposite parties-Corporation.

2. The petitioner, who is working as a Crane Operator in the Forest Development Corporation Ltd., has filed this writ petition with a prayer to regularize his services from 15.06.1983.

3. As the fact goes, according to the petitioner, the OFDC (O.P. No. 1) in the year 1980 executed an agreement with the employees' Union under the provisions of the Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. Daily Rated/ Consolidated Rated Workers Service Regulations Rules, 1980, wherein it was agreed that O.P. No. 1 will introduce a rule and the same shall form part of the agreement. Accordingly, the rule was framed and accepted by the parties. In terms of the agreement, the petitioner has been regularized on and from 6.6.1989 vide Annexure-3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner should have been regularized from 15.06.1983 instead of 06.06.1989 as per Annexure-1, which is the Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. Daily Rate/Consolidated Rate Workers Service Regulation Rules, 1989. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to Clause 3 of the said Rules which provides as follows:

The daily rated/consolidate rated workers working in jobs of permanent or continuous nature in any establishment, unit or branch of the Corporation on completion of two years of continuous service shall be absorbed in posts in regular establishment on the basis of the recommendation of the Committee constituted under Rule 3(b).

4. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to be regularized from 15.06.1983 as by then he had completed two years of service.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the O.P. No. 1-Corporation. The appointment of the petitioner on 15.06.1981 is not disputed in the counter affidavit. But a stand is taken in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit that generally regularization is being made against vacant posts. The Selection Committee selected 411 Field Assistants and 205 Class-IV employees. The Board created only 400 posts against which 386 Mates and 14 Class-IV employees were made regular. Though the petitioner was selected by the Selection Committee for regularization, due to non-creation of the post of Crane Operator by the Board, his regularization could not be made.

6. The learned Counsel for the O.Ps.-Corporation submits that at the present scenario the Corporation is downsizing the manpower for which large numbers of employees have been retrenched and the Corporation have resorted to voluntary retirement scheme. In view of the above position, learned Counsel for the O.Ps.-Corporation submits that now it is not possible nor was it possible in 1989 to absorb the petitioner retrospectively with effect from 15.06.1983.

7. This being the position, as the vacancy was not available then, we do not find any wrong or illegality in the action of the opposite parties in not regularizing the services of the petitioner from 6.6.1989.

8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial