AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard Counsel for the parties.
The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to absorb the petitioners in service and also to pay
them the salary from 16.05.2001 till January, 2008.
Counsel for the petitioners submits at the outset that during the pendency of this writ application, the petitioners have been absorbed in service
under the respondents in February, 2008, but the petitioners'' claim for salary for the period from 16.05.2001 till the date of their absorption in
service, has not been met.
Counsel for the Respondent-State submits, by referring to the statements contained in the counter affidavit, that on verification, it is found that
the petitioners have not worked during the period for which they have claimed salary and as such, they are not found eligible and, therefore, no
salary can be given to the petitioners.
Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, controverts the statements and submits that the petitioners like several other similarly situated
employees, were employed initially in the Non-Formal Education Project under the Education Department. The project was later merged with tine
scheme under the ''Serva Slniksha Abhiyan'' and consequently, the petitioners and other similarly situated employees were not given employment.
Referring to tine judgment in the case of Bhubneswar Mahto case in W.P. (S) No. 4751 of 2003, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits
that the same objection was taken by the respondents in the aforementioned case and payment of salary was refused on the ground that the writ
petitioner therein did not work during the period. This Court on considering the facts, had observed that the writ petitioner was admittedly working
since long, but after the closer of the Non-Formal Education Project, the employees who were earlier engaged, were not retrenched and the
authority concerned did not take any work from such employees. There being no latches on the part of the employees, the respondent cannot deny
the payment of salary to the employees. Learned Counsel submits that the facts of the present case is identical to the facts in the case of
Bhubneswar Mahto (supra) and hence, the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as decided in the case of Bhubneswar Mahto (supra).
Having heard the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, I am
satisfied that the ratio decided in the Bhubneswar Mahto''s case does squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The Respondent-State
Government is duty bound to pay salary to the petitioners since after the abolition of the Non-Formal Education Project, the petitioners were not
retrenched and yet, the authorities concerned did not take any work from the petitioners without there being any latches on their part.
In the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to pay the petitioners their salary for the period from 16.05.2001 till January, 2008,
within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the amount payable shall carry interest @ 5% per
annum till the date of final payment.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.