The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24731 of 2025 Union of India and others …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Ajay Kumar Roy, Senior Panel Counsel, Govt. of India -versus- Manas Kumar Sahoo and others …. Opp. Party(s) Mr. Debi Prasad Dhalsamant, Advocate CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 15.09.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 26.02.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.260/00058 of 2019, in which, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to allow the O.A. and held that the opposite party Nos.1 to 13 are entitled to 1/30th of the minimum scale of pay in Level-1 (Rs.18,000/-) from February, 2018 as was paid to them upto January, 2018 and, therefore, the Page 1 of 6 petitioners were directed to calculate and pay the opposite party Nos.1 to 13, the differential arrear amount from February, 2018 onwards within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the order. It seems that the O.A. has been filed by the opposite party Nos.1 to 13 with the following relief:- “8.1 That the corrigendum dated 14.2.2018 (A/9) be quashed. 8.2 That the respondents be directed to release the arrear wages of the applicants w.e.f. 01.01.2016. 8.3 That the respondents be directed to grant wages at the rate of Rs.630/- per day i.e. 1/30th of minimum scale of payable as that of regular employee as Level-I i.e. Rs.18,000/-. 8.4 And further be pleased to pass any order/order(s) as deem fit and proper to give complete relief to the applicant.” The petitioners, on being noticed, filed the counter affidavit and another affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioners by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-4. The learned Tribunal after considering the ratio laid down in the cases of State of Haryana & Ors. vrs. Charanjit Singh & Ors. reported in 2005 (7) Supreme 193, Surinder Singh and Anr. vrs. Engineer-In-Chief, C.P.W.D. & Ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC 584 and Dhirendera Page 2 of 6 Chamoli And Anr. vrs. State of U.P. reported in AIR OnLine 1985 SC 9, has been pleased to held as follows:- “13. Ld. Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Charanjit Singh & Ors., 2005(7) Supreme 193, the state that the applicants being causal workers are not entitled to claim equal pay for equal work. We have gone through the said decision and we find that the Hon’ble Apex Court have interfered with the order of the Hon’ble High Court since in the said case, there was no finding that the work discharged by the petitioner were similar to that of the regular employees whereas, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the casual to workers after being engaged prior 10.12.2008 are getting 1/30th of minimum scale of pay. It is also not in dispute that the applicants were paid the 1/30th minimum pay scale till January, 2018. Further, it is not in dispute that the applicants have been discharging the duties like that of regular Group-D/MTS employees of the department and the casual workers who were engaged prior to 10.12.2008 and are continuing till date. In view of the above, the decision relied on by the respondents rather supports the case of the applicants. It may also be recorded that the DoP&T order is very much clear as to under what circumstances and situations, the 1/30th minimum pay scale shall be allowed to causal employees. Hence, is corrigendum dated 14.02.2018 the opposed to the law and DoP&T OMs and, thus, cannot be made applicable to the case of the applicants. The case of the applicants Page 3 of 6 also qualifies the conditions made by the DoP&T in the aforesaid OMs. We also do not find any reasonable classification or criteria in depriving the applicants the 1/30th minimum scale of pay as because they have been engaged after 04/10.12.2008 although it is not in dispute that discharging the same and similar duties like the casual employees after being engaged continuing in engagement on payment of 1/30th of minimum pay scale. Hence, on consideration of facts, DoP&T OMs and law, we find gross injustice was caused to the applicants in decision making process of the matter in stopping and depriving them the 1/30th of minimum scale of pay from February, 2018. Hence, the applicants are entitled to 1/30th of minimum scale of pay in Level -1 (Rs. 18,000/-) from February, 2018 as was paid to them upto January, 2018. In view of the discussions made above, the respondents are hereby directed to calculate and pay the applicants the differential arrear amount from February, 2018 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance in the case of Prasar Bharati Board Casting Corporation of India and others vrs. Goutam Ballav Mohanty, which was decided by this Court on 16.08.2024 in W.P.(C) No.16222 of 2018. The learned Tribunal has also placed reliance on the same while passing the impugned order. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the opposite party Nos.1 to 13 Page 4 of 6 were working as daily wages in different office and were not engaged through any regular recruitment process and their nature of work was purely temporary and casual. Therefore, they are not entitled to get the relief, as was given by the learned Tribunal. However, we find that not only the learned Tribunal considered the DoP&T OM No.49014/2/86 Estt. (C) dtd. 07.06.1998 but also in the CBDT’s letter F No.C-30014/41/2015-V & L dtd. 16.10.2015, wherein it is specifically stated that the payment to casual labourers whose nature of work is the same as that of regular employees, duly certified by the Supervisory Officer, will be made @ 1/30th of the minimum Pay Band i.e. PB-1 of Rs.5,200/- (5200-20200) with GP-1800 as per recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission notified by the Government plus DA admissible from time to time on the said amount with effect from 01.07.2008. Specifically, it was mentioned therein that such order is applicable to the daily wages labourers/daily wages workers/casual labourers of the Income Tax Department within Odisha Region and this above rate of wages was not applicable to any persons/daily wages labourers engaged through any service provider/agency in view of the Board’s letter No.12034/1/2004-Ad.IA dtd.4/10.12.2008. Admittedly, the opposite party Nos.1 to 13 were not engaged Page 5 of 6 through any service provider/agency. We are of the view that since the opposite parties were engaged on casual basis directly by the petitioners on various dates after 01.12.2008 and they filed the O.A. to quash the corrigendum dated 14.02.2018, wherein it was held that not only the persons/daily wages labourers engaged through any service provider/agency but also it would not be applicable to any persons/casual workers engaged directly, which was challenged before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has considered this proposition of law, as has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court so also by this Court in the aforesaid case, i.e., Prasar Bharati (supra), has passed the impugned order, there is no infirmity or illegality in the same. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is dismissed. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) (S.S. Mishra) Judge Ashok/Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-Sep-2025 10:53:42 Page 6 of 6