JUDGMENT : KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J. Following are a set of four Writ Petitions: (i) WP(C) No.6831 of 2019 by the State calls in question Orissa Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 26.02.2018, whereby First OP’s O.A. No.134 of 2017 having been favoured, a direction has been issued to the authorities to treat him as Executive Engineer in Minor Irrigation cadre with effect from 09.02.2006 and on that basis to accord him promotion initially to the post of Superintending Engineer and thereafter, to the post of Chief Engineer with all service & financial benefits such as back-wages and further, to revise his pension accordingly. (ii) WP(C) No.6748 of 2019 & WP(C) No.6749 of 2019 by private parties seek to call in question Tribunal’s common order dated 20.09.2018, whereby their OA Nos.866 of 2004, 1931(c) of 2004, 1990(c) of 2016 & PP 212 of 2006 have been negatived. In those OAs, they had inter alia sought for the quashment of Gradation List of Asst. Engineers of Minor Irrigation (MI) cadre dated 18.06.2004. In one of those cases, i.e., O.A. No.1990(c) of 2016 challenge was laid to the Govt. orders dated 05.04.2016 & 20.05.2016, whereby the request for holding the DPC for promotion of Dy. Executive Engineers of MI cadre to the post of Executive Engineer has been rejected. (iii) WP(C) No.7280 of 2019 by the State seeks to call in question Tribunal’s order dated 14.05.2018, whereby O.A. No.1013 of 2018 having been favoured, relief has been accorded to OP No.1 as has been done in its order dated 26.02.2018 entered in O.A. No.134 of 2017, as mentioned in Sl. No.(i) above. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF: Full facts with all material details do avail in the Apex Court decision in Amarendre Kumar Mahapatra v. State of Orissa , (2014) 4 SCC 583 and therefore, only such of the facts as are relevant for our adjudication are stated below: 2.1. The Water Resources Department in the Government had four wings, namely, (i) Minor Irrigation Division (MID), (ii) Major & Medium Irrigation Division (MMID), (iii) Mechanical Division (MD) & (iv) Ground Water Division (GWD). The Water Resources Department in the Government had four wings, namely, (i) Minor Irrigation Division (MID), (ii) Major & Medium Irrigation Division (MMID), (iii) Mechanical Division (MD) & (iv) Ground Water Division (GWD). One set of employees belonging to MMID had launched a spate of litigations before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal for setting aside the Gradation List of the Engineers of MID essentially contending that there were no different divisions as MID & MMID, and therefore, the Gradation List having been founded on an assumption to the contrary was faultsome. Other set of employees belonging to MID had launched litigation grieving against the deprivation of promotional opportunities. 2.2. The Tribunal treated OA No.134 of 2017 as the lead case and entered the impugned order dated 26.02.2018, whereby promotional benefits amongst other have been conferred with a direction grant revision of pay scales, back-wages, and consequent enhancement of terminal benefits, inasmuch as, the employees had retired. This has been challenged by the State in WP(C) No.6831 of 2019. Against the said order Review Petition filed by the State came to be negatived vide order dated 14.02.2019 which is the subject matter of challenge in WP(C) No.6831 of 2019. Other companion cases were also decided by the Tribunal keeping in view the lead case judgment. 3. CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES: 3.1. Learned AGA appearing for the State vehemently argues that there were separate wings at least up to a particular point of time, namely, the enactment of the Orissa Service of Engineers (Validation of Appointment) Act, 2002; this historical fact having been lost sight of, the impugned order of Tribunal is liable to be voided. Secondly, the OP No.1 in 6831 of 2019 had filed OA No.134 of 2017 after brooking a long delay and therefore, no relief could have been directed to be conferred on him after retirement. Thirdly, there was status quo order dated 13.07.2018 in SLP Nos.9679 & 9680 of 2017 and therefore, the Tribunal could not have ignored the same. Fourthly, all this was urged before the Tribunal in the Review Petitions; however, the same have not been found favour with. So contending, he seeks voiding of Tribunal’s Original Order and the Review Order. 3.2. Thirdly, there was status quo order dated 13.07.2018 in SLP Nos.9679 & 9680 of 2017 and therefore, the Tribunal could not have ignored the same. Fourthly, all this was urged before the Tribunal in the Review Petitions; however, the same have not been found favour with. So contending, he seeks voiding of Tribunal’s Original Order and the Review Order. 3.2. Learned advocates appearing for the private parties, who had opposed the stand that there were four separate cadres in the Department of Water Resources, sailed with learned AGA highlighting checkered history of stipendiary engagement of Graduate Engineers in various departments & public sector organisations. They too have filed the companion writ petitions. The learned counsel appearing for them made submission for faltering the impugned orders of the Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing for OP No.1 very fervently made submissions in justification of impugned orders. He highlighted about legislative intervention and its pervasive effect of white washing all contentions of learned AGA and those who sail with him. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: 4.1. The appointment of unemployed Engineering Graduates on consolidated stipend of Rs.2000/- per month and latter their absorption in service two years after their joining in various branches of Engineering came to be accomplished by the Cabinet decision dated 15.05.1990 under the heading “Problems of Un-employed Degree Engineers”. By Government Resolution Dated 22.09.1990 the Guidelines regulating the procedure to give effect to the Cabinet decision were promulgated. During the period between 1991 & 1994 hundreds of stipendiary Engineering Graduates came to be enrolled in public service on temporary basis. A few selectees, who were not appointed moved OJS No.2653 of 1998 which came to be disposed off by this Court vide order dated 06.05.1998, directing the State Government to consider the candidature of these persons for appointment. In OJC Nos.6354 & 6355 of 1999 filed by two of the stipendiary engineers, this Court vide order dated 02.07.2002 directed regularisation of their appointments and to treat them as direct recruits from the date of their entry into service for the purpose of in-service promotion, pension and other service benefits. 4.2. The Government having deliberated over the matter went for legislative step eventually resulting into 2002 Validation Act, being enacted. Section 3 of the Act reads as under: “3. Validation. 4.2. The Government having deliberated over the matter went for legislative step eventually resulting into 2002 Validation Act, being enacted. Section 3 of the Act reads as under: “3. Validation. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Recruitment Rules, seven hundred ninety-nine Assistant Engineers belonging to the discipline of Civil, fifty-seven Assistant Engineers belonging to the discipline of Mechanical and twenty-five Assistant Engineers belonging to the discipline of Electrical as specified in the Schedule with their names, dates of birth, dates of appointment appoi and the names of the Departments under which they are working on ad hoc basis since the date of such appointment shall be deemed to be validly and regularly appointed under their respective Department of the Government against the direct recruitment quota of the service with effect from the date of commencement of this Act and, accordingly, no such appointment shall be challenged in any court of law merely on the ground that such appointments were made otherwise than in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Recruitment Rules. (2) The inter se seniority of the Assistant Engineers whose appointments are so validated shall be determined according to their dates of appointment on ad hoc basis as mentioned in the Schedule and they shall be unblock (sic en bloc) junior to the Assistant Engineers of that year appointed to the service in the respective discipline in their cadre in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. (3) The services rendered by the Assistant Engineers whose appointments are so validated, prior to the commencement of this Act shall, subject to the provisions in sub-section (2), count for the purposes of their pension, leave and increment and for no other purpose” This Act was struck down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No.9514 of 2003, etc. vide common order dated 15.10.2008. However, the Apex Court in Amarendre Kumar supra has set aside the Division Bench order, after considering all aspects of the matter. 4.3. In Amarendre Kumar , at Paragraphs 78 & 82.2, it has been observed as under: “78. Having said so, there is no reason why a similar direction regarding the writ petitioners degree-holder Junior Engineers who have been held by us to be entitled to regularisation on account of their length of service should also not be given a similar benefit. In Amarendre Kumar , at Paragraphs 78 & 82.2, it has been observed as under: “78. Having said so, there is no reason why a similar direction regarding the writ petitioners degree-holder Junior Engineers who have been held by us to be entitled to regularisation on account of their length of service should also not be given a similar benefit. We must mention to the credit of Dr Dhavan, appearing for the Stipendiary Engineers who have been regularised under the provisions of the legislation that such Stipendiary ad hoc Assistant Engineers cannot, according to the learned counsel, have any objection to the degree- holder Junior Engineers currently working as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis being regularised in service or being given seniority from the date they were first appointed. It was also conceded that Stipendiary Engineers all of whom were appointed after the appointment of the Junior Engineers would en bloc rank junior to such ad hoc Assistant Engineers from out of degree-holder Junior Engineers. But all such regularised Assistant Engineers from Stipendiary stream and from Junior Engineers category would together rank below the promotee Assistant Engineers. 82.2. Writ Petitions Nos. 9514 of 2003, 12494-95, 12627 of 2005, 12706 and 8630 of 2006 filed by the degree-holder Junior Engineers working as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis are also allowed but only to the limited extent that the services of the writ petitioners and all those who are similarly situated and promoted as ad hoc Assistant Engineers against the proposed 5% quota reserved for in-service Junior Engineers degree-holders shall stand regularised w.e.f. the date the Orissa Service of Engineers (Validation of Appointment) Act, 2002 came into force. We further direct that such in-service degree-holder Junior Engineers promoted as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis shall be placed below the promotees and above the Stipendiary Engineers regularised in terms of the impugned, legislation. The inter se seniority of the Stipendiary Engineers regularised as Assistant Engineers under the impugned legislation and Junior Engineer degree- holders regularised in terms of this order shall be determined on the basis of their date of first appointment as Assistant Engineers on ad hoc basis.” 4.4. The question whether there are different cadres in the Water Resources Department, need not detain us for long. The question whether there are different cadres in the Water Resources Department, need not detain us for long. The Schedule to 2002 Validation Act itself specifically mentions Minor Irrigation cadre, i.e. MI cadre, H & UD cadre, Industries cadre, Mechanical Industries cadre, etc. The Legislature has got plenary power to deem certain things within its competence, even if, factually they do not obtain as such. One cannot dig the grave to ascertain the factual aspect when legislation deems certain things, regardless of reality. That being the position these petitions predominantly structured on the premise of there being no separate divisions/cadres, therefore, are liable to be rejected. 4.5. The vehement submission of learned AGA that OP No.1 in WPC No.6831 of 2019, who was the applicant in OA No.134 of 2017 had approached the Tribunal after brooking a long delay does not merit deeper examination, and reasons for this are simple: Firstly, in the Counter filed by the State to the said OA not even a whisper was made about the delay. Secondly, even in the Review Petition such a contention was not taken up. Thirdly, the question of delay, subject to all just exceptions, is conventionally treated as a mixed question of law & facts, and therefore, without the foundational pleadings, the same cannot be examined in the Writ Petition. Lastly, Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 does prescribe the limitation is true. However, it is not in the form of a Thumb Rule. Discretion does exist with the Tribunal to entertain even belated claims, if there is some explanation for the delay brooked. Even on record, the Government had specifically stated in its Counter filed in the OA before the Tribunal that the representations made by the said OP & other similarly placed employees were kept pending because of a plethora of cases filed by other factions of employees. Therefore, allowing the State to take up such a plea virtually amounts to placing premium on the lapse attributable to State Functionaries. 4.6. The Tribunal in OA No.134 of 2017 at Paragraph 8 has observed as under: “8. Therefore, allowing the State to take up such a plea virtually amounts to placing premium on the lapse attributable to State Functionaries. 4.6. The Tribunal in OA No.134 of 2017 at Paragraph 8 has observed as under: “8. Respd.No.1 to 3 have filed their counter jointly with the following averments: The representations of the applicant at Annx.9 & 10 of the O.A. were taken into consideration for giving him promotion to the next higher rank i.e. S.E. Level-ll but due to pending of series of court cases regarding non-existence of Minor Irrigation as a separate cadre, his promotion could not be finalized before the date of his retirement i.e. 31.1.2017. Annx.1 to 3 as mentioned in the O.A. has been admitted in the counter. But stand has been taken that because of series of cases filed by the Engineers of Irrigation Cadre before different courts, the applicant's case for promotion could not be considered…” The State & its officials are expected to act like Model Employers vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam , AIR 2013 SC 234 and therefore, they cannot defeat legitimate claim of their employees on unsure grounds of delay & latches. It is more so when such employees having served in public employment for long have retired with no blemish in the service records. 4.7. There is force in the contention of learned counsel representing the contesting Opposite Party-employee that even before the 2002 Validation Act was enacted, there existed MI cadre as a separate unit and that there was separate Gradation List of employees in this cadre. Similarly, the Section in Major & Medium Irrigation cadre too there was a separate Gradation List. Many of employees, who figured in these lists, have secured promotion to the next higher levels. That having happened, they cannot be heard to unconscionably contend that the Gradation List of MI cadre is flawsome. They have no locus standii to raise their little finger against the regularity of the list in MI cadre to which they did not & do not belong. 4.8. That having happened, they cannot be heard to unconscionably contend that the Gradation List of MI cadre is flawsome. They have no locus standii to raise their little finger against the regularity of the list in MI cadre to which they did not & do not belong. 4.8. The last contention of learned AGA that the Tribunal ought not to have been conferred benefit of promotion on OP No.1 in WPC No.6831 of 2019 and such similarly placed employees in view of status quo order of the Apex Court in SLP Nos.9679 & 9680 of 2017 does not merit countenance for the simple reason that the very order itself made it clear that it did not apply to the employees, who have already demitted office on superannuation. The Tribunal at Paragraph 18 in OA No.134 of 2017 has rightly observed as under: “18.In the reply submitted by Respd. No.1 to 3 to the order dt.25.7.2017 of the Tribunal it is mentioned that in SLP 9679- 9680/2017 status quo order has been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court but nothing has been elaborated except that the said order has been passed against the order in WP(c)No.13066/2016 and RVWP No.243(c)/2016. But the original order of the Hon'ble Apex Court has not been filed. Besides this, if the order was passed after the retirement of the applicant from Govt. service, then the status quo order is not applicable to him and in the absence of details particulars, it is not known in which matter status quo order has been passed because the Engineers of Irrigation Cadre have been promoted periodically on 30.7.2016, 28.3.2017, 31.5.2017 and 30.6.2017. So, the alleged status quo order is no impediment to consider the case of the applicant.” In the above circumstances, all these petitions being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed, and accordingly they are, costs having been reluctantly made easy. The impugned orders of the Tribunal shall be given effect to and a compliance report be filed with the Registrar General of this Court within an outer limit of two months. Non- compliance shall be viewed very seriously in the next level of legal battle. Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.