The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14998 of 2023 Sandip Mishra and others …. Petitioners Mr. S. Routray, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A. Order No. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 17.05.2023 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioners have filed the present writ application with the following prayers: “It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to (i) Admit the writ petition. (ii) Call for the record. (iii) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties more particularly Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 to show cause as to why the impugned Agenda Item No.6 of 193rd Meeting of Board of Directors dated 30.03.2021 under Annexure-17 shall not be quashed being illegal and arbitrary. (iv) If the opposite parties more particularly the // 2 // appropriate writ/writs, Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 do not show cause or show insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs order/orders, direction/directions by quashing the impugned Agenda Item No.6 of 193rd Meeting of Board of Directors dated 30.03.2021 under Annexure-17. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any order/orders, other direction/directions by directing the Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 to fix the remuneration of the present petitioners in terms of the prevalent rules in force within a time period to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. pass consequential order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper looking at the the present rendered by service already petitioners for the ends of justice.” other such (v) (vi) And/or 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are contractual employee of Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation. He further submitted that all the Petitioners are engaged on contractual basis by the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation in the year 2011 and they have been continuing on such contractual basis as of now. It is further submitted that in the year 2017, the G.A. & P.G. Department, Government of Odisha amended the Odisha Group-B Posts (Contractual Appointment) Amendment Rules, 2013. Pursuant to amendment dated 12th September, 2017, the remuneration of the contractual employees was revised w.e.f. 01.01.2016. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that on the basis of such revision of such remuneration, the pay/remuneration of the Petitioners are to be revised annually as // 3 // indicated in the table appended to the Notification dated 12th September, 2017. Further referring to the decision of the Board of Directors of Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation in its 193rd Board meeting held on 30.03.2021, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in Agenda Item No.6 under the heading “Enhancement of remuneration of PMU Employees of OLIC Ltd.”, the Board has taken a decision to enhance the fixed remuneration of contractual employees in the OLIC Ltd. Further, it has been observed in the Agenda Item No.6 that since the contractual employees have filed different writ petitions before this Court and such writ applications are pending for disposal, the Board has resolved that awaiting further orders to be passed by this Court, the decision of enhancement of remuneration of PMU employees of OLIC Ltd. has been deferred. 5. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the contractual employees have approached this Court by filing writ petitions for regularization of their services, which have no connection with the issue involved in the present writ application as well as the decision to enhance the remuneration of the contractual employees. He further submitted that such decision to enhance the remuneration of contractual employees have already also been implemented in the case of some of the contractual employees of the Corporation. Accordingly, he has approached this Court for a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioners despite pendency of the writ petitions before this Court for // 4 // regularization. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties submitted that rule which has been referred by the leaned counsel for the Petitioners, i.e., 2013 Rules which has been repealed in the meantime vide Notification dated 12th September, 2017. Therefore, he submitted that the same has no application to the facts of the present case. However, it is upto the Board of Directors of Opposite Party- Corporation to take a decision in the matter keeping in view the fitness of the organization. 7. In reply to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that prior to the repeal of the rule of the year 2013 right has already accrued in the year 2021 and by following the said rule, benefit have already been given to the similar situated employees. Therefore, the Board can always take a decision independently and grant such benefits keeping in view that similarly situated persons extended such benefit and moreover, merely because the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the writ petitions, they cannot be suffered for approaching this Court for redressal of their grievance. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon a careful examination of the background facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that merely because some of the employees have approached this Court by filing writ petitions for regularization of their services, the same will not stand in the way of the Board to take a decision with regard to enhancement of the remuneration which // 5 // has already been extended in the case of similar situated employees and denial of such benefit to the Petitioners would amount to discrimination. In such view of the matter, this Court thinks it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party-Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation to consider the matter of enhancement of remuneration in respect of the Petitioners having regard to the fact that they have approached to this Court by filing writ applications for regularization for their services. Further, in the event there is no other legal impediment, the authorities shall consider and enhance the remuneration as has been done in the case of similar situated employees. Further, it is directed that let a decision be taken as directed hereinabove within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order by the Petitioners. In view of the aforesaid direction, the Opposite Party No.2 is specifically directed to place the matter before the Board for taking appropriate decision in the matter. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: PA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2023 18:04:28