The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1015 of 2023 Sangram Keshari Swain State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Rout, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 25.01.2023 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Decision
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition along with the documents annexed thereto. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to release the sanctioned/allotted arrear amount of Rs.8,21,274/- out of sanctioned amount of Rs.16,70,430/- in respect of his post and differential revised salary as due and admissible in terms of revision made to the ORSP Rules, 1998 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 instead of 1.10.2004, ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 instead of 1.4.2010 and ORSP Rules, 2017 w.e.f. 1.1.2016 including the RACP benefits at par with Government employees within a stipulated period of time following the principle of law laid down in the case of Biswajeet Mohapatra & a batch of cases, reported in 2017 (II) CUT-902 of this Court confirmed by the // 2 // Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.19399/2018. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on 7.4.1994, the Petitioner was appointed as Junior Laboratory Assistant in the office of Water and Land Management Institution (WALMI) initially on ad-hoc basis. On 7.4.1999, the service of the Petitioner was regularized. Following the regularization of his service, the State Government sanctioned/released their arrear financial benefits as is due and admissible in respect of 12 employees with specific name of the employees including the Petitioner and the amount which is arrear vide letter dated 21.12.2017 under Annexure-3. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that out of total sanctioned amount of Rs.16,70,430/-, the Opposite Party No.3 released only Rs.8,49,156/- in favour of the Petitioner on 16.02.2018. He further contended that vide letter under Annexure-3, the sanction/approval for payment of amount mentioned therein has been given. Furthermore, it has been specifically mentioned that the amount shall be utilized for the purpose for which it has been sanctioned and same cannot be diverted and utilized otherwise. It is further contended that despite such condition mentioned in letter under Annexure-3, the Petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.8,49,156/- and the balance still remains unpaid. Therefore, the Petitioner is yet to receive a sum of Rs.8,21,274/- as has been sanctioned and disbursed by the Government. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted a representation before the authority on 17.1.2020 claiming his arrear dues. However, same was not considered by // 3 // the authorities which compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19324 of 2022 and this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the Parties disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 16.08.2022 directing the authorities to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Biswajeet Mohapatra (supra). 5. Thereafter, the Petitioner again approached the authorities to consider his case in terms of the order passed by this Court on 16.8.2022. It is submitted that the representation of the Petitioner was although considered, however, the same was rejected without considering the case of the Petitioner in its proper perspective. He also submitted that while considering the case of the Petitioner vide order dated 29.12.2022 under Annexure-14, the Director, WALMI has not taken into consideration the law laid down by this Court in respect of similarly placed employees, particularly the judgment in Biswajeet Mohapatra (supra), reported in 2017 (II) CUT-902 which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.19399/2018. Moreover, the order dated 29.12.2022 reveals that the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the WALMI, Odisha is a registered society and as such an autonomous body receiving grant-in-aid from the Government and, therefore, they have limited resources to manage their affairs and that the affairs of the WALMI is subject to approval by its Governing Council. Further, it is stated in the impugned order that ORSP Rules, 1998 extending benefits from 1.1.1996 and ORSP Rules, 2008 // 4 // extending benefits from 1.1.2006 are meant for State Government employees which is not applicable to the core employees of the WALMI. Further, a grounds has also been taken while rejecting the representation of the Petitioner to the effect that till date the pay of core employees of WALMI is governed as per ORSP Rules 1998 w.e.f. 01.10.2004 and ORSP Rules 2017 has not yet been implemented. The impugned order also reveals that the RACP benefits extended by the Finance Department vide Resolution dated 06.02.2013 has been made applicable to the employees of the Government. However, the same has not been made applicable to the employees of WALMI. 6. This Court upon perusal of WALMI Governing Body Resolution dated 27.7.1994 under Annexure-6 under Item No.19 found that the Governing Council has approved that till finalization of own service rules of WALMI, the employees of WALMI shall be governed by the Orissa Service Code, T.A. Rules, Government Servant Conduct Rules and other Rules, Circulars, orders etc. of Government of Orissa as issued and amended from time to time may be made applicable mutatis mutandis to WALMI, Odisha employees. 7. In such view of the matter, there is no quarrel with regard to the fact that the employees of the WALMI are at par with the Government employees, so far their service condition is concerned. Further, it has been categorically asserted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that no such separate rule as // 5 // has been mentioned in Item No.19 of the Governing Council Resolution of WALMI has been prepared so far. However, on perusal of letter dated 21.12.2017 under Annexure-3, it is revealed that sanction has been granted to WALMI to clear the arrear dues of 12 numbers of ad hoc staffs (now regularized) and the Government has specifically provided a sum of Rs.16,70,430/- towards arrear dues of the present Petitioner whose name appears against Serial No.6 in Annexure-A to the said letter indicating therein that the arrears dues upto 09/2016. However, entire amount has not been disbursed to the Petitioner as desired by the Government while according sanction. 8. On perusal of the judgment in Biswajeet Mohapatra’s case (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court observed in paragraph- 20 of the said judgment, which as follows:- In view of the discussion made above, this 20. Court has no hesitation to hold that the fixation of cut-off date for extending the benefit of revised UGC scale of pay w.e.f. 01.10.2004 prospectively, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to extend the benefits of revised UGC scale of pay to the petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.1996 at par with their the counterpart Lecturers working Department of Higher Education, Agricultural Department of Government of Odisha with consequential benefits, and that score be calculated and paid to them as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this judgment. the differential salary on Finance Department under and 9. In view of the aforesaid analysis, when this Court // 6 // examined the order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the Director, WALMI under Annexure-14, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid aspect has not been taken into consideration while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. Moreover, the order passed under Annexure-14 is not in consonance with the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19324 of 2022 disposed of vide order dated 16.8.2022. 10. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 29.12.2022 under Annexure- 14 is unsustainable in the eye of law and, as such, the same needs to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the matter in accordance with law and pass necessary orders keeping in view the aforesaid analysis, particularly taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in Biswajeet Mohapatra’s case (supra) and take a decision within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Let the Petitioner approach the Opposite Party No.1 along with a certified copy of this order as well as a copy of the judgment of this Court in Biswajeet Mohapatra’s case (supra). It is open to the Petitioner to submit any other documents in support of his claim before the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to act upon production of certified copy of this order and in the event it is found by Opposite Party No.1 that the decision of the Government has not been given effect to, then necessary action be taken against the // 7 // erring officers. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. 12. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis