The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.959 of 2021 Bijay Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mahapatra, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY COROM:
Decision
Order No ORDER 15.12.2025 12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging rejection of the claim of the Petitioner to get officiating allowance, so recommended vide Annexuxres-5 & 8 and rejected vide the impugned order dt.01.06.2020 under Annexure-13. 4. It is contended that while continuing in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4, Petitioner though was allowed to drive a vehicle, but since he was not extended with the benefit of officiating allowance for such running of the vehicle, after the retirement of the incumbent driver, // 2 // recommendation was made under Annexure-5 and thereafter vide Annexure-8 to the Government-Opp. party No.1 for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim. 4.1. It is contended that on the face of such recommendation made under Annexures-5 & 8, when no action was taken, Petitioner moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.609 of 2018. The Tribunal vide order dt.10.04.20218 under Annexure-12 when directed Opp. Party No.1 to take a decision on the recommendation so made vide Annexures-5 & 8, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dt.1.06.2020 under Annexure-13. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that, since on the retirement of the incumbent driver, Petitioner was allowed to drive the vehicle in question in the establishment of Opp. party No.4 and he was recommended to get the benefit of officiating allowance vide Annexure-5 and subsequently vide Annexure-8, the ground on which claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-13, is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel while supporting the impugned order made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-96 of the Odisha Service Code, it is contended that since Petitioner during the Page 2 of 5 // 3 // relevant point of time was working in the job contract establishment, provisions contained under Rule-96 of the Code is not applicable to his case. Rule 96 of the Code reads as follows: 96. HOLDING OR OFFICIATING TWO OR MORE INDEPENDENT POST AT ONE TIME: The pay of a Government servant appointed by the State Government to hold substantively as a temporary measure or to officiate in two or more independent posts at one time shall be regulated as follows: (a) The highest pay to which he would be entitled if his appointment on one of the posts stood alone, may be drawn on account of his tenure of that post. (b) For each other post he may draw such reasonable pay, in no case exceeding half the presumptive pay (excluding overseas pay) of the post, as the State Government may fix; and (c) If a compensatory allowances is attached to one or more of the posts he may draw such compensatory allowance the State Government may fix, provided that such allowance shall not exceed the total of the compensatory allowances attached to all the posts. 5.1. It is contended that only a regular employee can be allowed to officiate against another post and in such cases officiating allowance can be given or extended. Since it is not disputed that Petitioner during the relevant point of time was working in the job contract establishment and he was not a regular employee, provisions contained under rule-96 of the Code cannot be made applicable. The stand taken in para-6 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: Page 3 of 5 // 4 // the aforesaid period was 6. That the Principal Secretary to Government in Revenue & Disaster Management Department ie. the opposite-party No.1 in compliance of the order of the Tribunal has passed the impugned order under Annexure-13 dated 1.6.2020 by which the claim of the petitioner for the officiating allowance rejected. The for reasoning advanced in the impugned order was that during the period in question the petitioner was not working in the regular establishment of the Government, but was working in the job contract establishment. Therefore, the petitioner being not regular Government employee during the period in question, the provisions of Section-96 of the Odisha Service Code has no application and consequently the petitioner is not entitled for the officiating allowance for the said period. The reasoning advanced are in consonance with the provisions of Section-96 of the Odisha Service Code and therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of record and as such the order impugned cannot be faulted. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that no irregularity or illegality can be found with the impugned order on the face of the recommendation made under Annexures-5 & 8. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that on the retirement of the incumbent driver in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4, Petitioner was allowed to drive the vehicle in question. As found, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of officiating allowance for the period 20.08.1989 to 04.05.1991 was recommended vide Annexures-5 and 8. However, such recommendation made in favour of the Petitioner was rejected pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.609 of 2018 vide the impugned order dt.01.06.2020 under Annexure-13 on Page 4 of 5 // 5 // the ground that Petitioner since is not a regular employee, during the relevant point of time, his claim is not covered under Rule-96 of the Odisha Service Code. 6.1. This Court after going through the provisions contained under Rule 96 of the Code and the admitted position that the Petitioner was not a regular employee at the relevant point of time, is of the view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by Opp. Party No.1, while rejecting the Petitioner’s claim. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dt.1.6.2020 under Annexure-13 and dismiss the Writ Petition. sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 19-Dec-2025 16:28:29 Page 5 of 5