AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The State in this petition challenges an order dated 26th August 2010 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar (OAT) in O.A. No.189 of 2010.
A short question before the OAT was whether the Opposite Party could count the period during which she worked in the Aeronautics Education Society (Aeronautics U.P. School 'D' Zone) prior to its takeover by the Government with effect from 25th August 1983 for the purposes of seniority, qualifying service for pension etc. Against the rejection of her representation in this regard, the Opposite Party approached the OAT.
In the impugned order, the OAT has referred to the case of a similar situated teacher Bharat Kumar Hota in whose case the OAT had accepted a similar plea. Some references were also made to other applications filed by similarly situated persons in whose cases also a relief was granted. Referring to all of the above cases, the OAT held "once a benefit has been extended in favour of similarly situated persons, in our considered view the applicant shall also be entitled for the same benefits as has been extended in favour of those applicants in the earlier O.As." Accordingly, the period of service rendered by the Respondent i.e. 4th August 1975 to 25th August 1983 in the Aeronautics U.P. School till it was taken over by the Government was asked to be counted for working out her consequential service benefits.
While issuing notice in the present petition on 12th August 2013, the scope of the present writ Petitioner was limited to the extent of the relief granted by the OAT. The seniority of the Opposite Party was asked to be fixed taking into account her service in the school in question prior to its takeover by the Government. Other benefits granted in the impugned order were stayed.
In the meanwhile, the Opposite Party superannuated. Considering the said factor and further that there were other cases where similar reliefs have been granted by the OAT and implemented by the Petitioners, the Court considers it appropriate to direct that the impugned order granting similar reliefs to the Opposite Party will not be treated as a precedent for future cases. No further directions are called for. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
.............................