The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 2977 of 2004 Arjun Jena …. Petitioner Mr. S.S.Tripathy on behalf of Mr. S.R.Pati, Advocate State of Orissa and others -versus- …. Opp. Parties CORAM: JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
Decision
ORDER 06.04.2023 Hybrid Mode Order No. 4 1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though he has no Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, he has been instructed by Mr. S.R.Pati to argue the matter on behalf of the petitioner. Prayer by the learned counsel Shri Tripathy is allowed and the matter being nineteen years old is taken up. 3. Writ petition was filed in the year 2004 with the following prayer : “It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why; A) why the impugned orders dated 11.08.2000 and 05.09.2000 vide Annexures-14 and 15 shall not be quashed. B) why the petitioner shall not be paid his salary in the scale of pay of Rs.1120-2245 and Rs.1640- 2900 as per the ORSP Rules, 1985 and 1989 and the corresponding scale of pay as per the ORSP Rules, 1998. C) why the arrear differential salary as due and admissible the petitioner shall not be calculated and paid to him within a stipulated period. to If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned orders vide Annexure-14 and 15 with a further prayer to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to extend the benefits of the scale of pay of Rs.1120-2245/- and Rs.1650-2900 as per the ORSP Rules, 1985 and 1989 and the corresponding scale of pay as per the ORSP Rules, 1998 with a further prayer to direct the opp.parties to calculate the arrear differential salary of the petitioner and pay the same to the petitioner within a stipulated period.” 4. The writ petition was presented before this Court on 8.3.2004. On 8.11.2005 matter was listed before the Division Bench when it was directed to remove the defects as pointed by S.R. in filing the writ petition. Again on 13.02.2015 the matter was listed before this Court when it was directed to list after removal of defects along with O.J.C. No. 433 of 1999. 5. Office note put up by the Registry dated 23.3.2023 indicates that defects nos.6, 7 & 10 as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter on 19.08.2004 have not yet been removed. Apparently after filing of the petition for the last 19 years, defects have not been removed. 6. A prayer is made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, to adjourn the matter on the ground that he shall obtain up-to-date instruction from the petitioner and the petitioner shall suffer if the matter is not adjourned. However, the learned counsel has no answer to the queries of the court as to how the matter Page 2 of 4 has not been moved nor the defects removed for the last nineteen years. 7. Petitioner has stated to be working as Librarian in a college under the Governing Body Opposite Party No.3. Petition has been filed claiming scale of pay in terms of ORSP Rules, 1985 with effect from 1.1.1985 and ORSP Rules, 1989 with effect from 1.5.1989. 8. Apart from the fact that the matter has not been pursued to the extent not removing the defect for last 19 years as indicated above, the petitioner has approached this Court in 2004 after twenty years of the ORSP Rules, 1985 were implemented i.e., 1.1.1985 and at least after fourteen years of the alleged cause of action in 1989. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is second round of litigation and first round of litigation was by filing O.J.C. No. 433 of 1999 which was disposed of by order dated 30.06.1999 directing by an innocuous order to consider the claim of the petitioner within two months. 10. In any event, in 1999 also the petitioner’s claim was 14 years old if the date of coming into effect of ORSP Rules, 1985 is considered i.e. 1.1.1985. Orders impugned in the writ petition i.e. Annexure-14 is dated 11.8.2000 and Annexure-15 is dated 5.9.2000 which the petitioner took at least four years to challenge before this Court, thereafter the matter is kept pending for removal of defects in filing for 19 years. Twentythree Page 3 of 4 years have passed after passing of those orders in the year 2000. 11. The order dated 11.8.2000 (Annexure-14) indicates that the pay scale claimed by the petitioner as per ORSP Rules, 1989 is Rs.1640-2900/-, which is not available for the Graduate Librarians in the Non-Government Colleges as prescribed in the yardstick. It is indicated that such scale of pay is available to the Graduate Librarians in the Government Colleges where the student strength is more than 2000. Petitioner’s case is that he works in a Non-Govt. aided college, therefore, the scales as claimed as per ORSP Rules 1985 and 1989 are not available to be paid to him. 12. Though the petitioner in the writ petition has indicated that similarly situated persons are getting the pay scale sought for by the petitioner but in the petition the petitioner nowhere has stated regarding the details of his qualification and engagement nor has referred to the yardstick to justify his claim. 13. When the writ petition was filed in the year 2004, petitioner was aged about 45 years as per the affidavit sworn to by him and would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year around 2019. After the ORSP Rules, 1985 & 1989 subsequent pay revisions have happened as the amended ORSP Rules in the year 1998 & thereafter in 2014. It is also not known as what happened to the petitioner’s pay scale after revisions in 1998 and 2014 though the matter is kept pending for all these years. Page 4 of 4 14. In view of the above discussions, having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for State, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. dutta Judge (M.S.Sahoo) Page 5 of 4