AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
 1. Both these petitions, arise out of similar circumstances and involved the same issues, are accordingly disposed of by this common order.
OJC No.2712 of 2002 challenges an order dated 1st January, 2002 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (CAT) whereby
while disposing of O.A. No.120 of 2001 filed by Opposite Parties 1 to 8, the CAT issued a direction to the present Petitioners that Opposite Parties 1
to 8 “be re-engaged as casual workers from time to time depending upon the need for engagement of such casual workers and their date of initial
engagement and the total number of days of work put in by them. We make it clear that the respondents will be free to operate a work chart in the
manner mentioned above providing engagement to the applicants and other casual workers. The above direction is subject to the important condition
that the applicants report themselves for engagement before the respondents at the appropriate time.â€
OJCÂ No. 6201 of 2002 is directed against a similar order dated 20 th May, 2002 passed by the CAT in O.A. No.146 of 2001 filed by Opposite
Party Nos.1 and 2. In the said petition whereby the CAT has issued a direction similar to the one by it in its order dated 1st January, 2002 in O.A.
No.120 of 2001.
While admitting these petitions on 17th May and 8th July, 2002 respectively, this Court stayed the operation of the respective impugned orders of
the CAT.
Mr. Narasingh, learned Standing Counsel (Central) appearing for Petitioner No.2 i.e. the Accountant General (Audit)-I, Orissa has placed before
this Court a communication dated 24th August, 2021 addressed to him on current employment status of the Opposite Parties in both the petitions,
which is taken on record. It may have noted here that Opposite Parties 3 and 5 (in OJC No.2712 of 2002) expired during pendency of the present
petitions. As regards the remaining persons, Opposite Parties 1, 2 and 6 (in OJC No.2712 of 2002) and Opposite Party 1 (in OJC No. 6201 of 2002)
were all offered appointment on merits as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) in Group-C cadre on a regular basis after their selection on 3rd May, 2012.
Opposite Party No.4 (in OJC No.2712 of 2002) was likewise given appointment on 30th December, 2003. Opposite Parties 7 and 8 (in OJCÂ
No.2712 of 2002) and Opposite Party No.2 (in OJCÂ No. 6201 of 2002) did not qualified in the selection.
Consequently, the impugned orders of the CAT appear to have been worked out. Therefore, no further directions are called for in the present
petitions.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
The interim orders passed earlier stands vacated..
……………………………….