The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) Nos.29926 ,25334,25423,25506,26036,26168, 26269,26373,26379,29612,29928,29929,30029 & 30652 of 2025 Surya Narayan Mohanty …. WP(C ) No.25328 of 2025 Petitioner Mr. K.K. Nayak, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr.C.K. Pradhan, AGA THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY COROM: Order No
Decision
ORDER 13.11.2025 2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Since the issue in the present batch of Writ Petition is with regard to entitlements of the Petitioners to get the benefit of Pay revision w.e.f 01.01.2006 under ORSP Rules, 2008, so rejected by the Government vide different orders and impugned in the present batch of Writ Petitions, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 4. It is contended that all the Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions while continuing under the erstwhile State Transport Service (STS)were deputed to Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (in short, “Corporation”) at different point of time. However, even while continuing on // 2 // such deputation, Petitioners were extended with all the benefits as due and admissible as a Government employee. 4.1. It is also contended that earlier when benefit of ORSP Rules, 1996 was not extended w.e.f 01.01.1996 and the Corporation took a decision to extend the same from a subsequent date, pursuant to the order passed by this Court and during pendency of the Writ Appeal, Government suo moto extended the benefit of ORSP Rules, 1998 w.e.f 01.01.1996 in favour of the present Petitioners. But instead of extending the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f 01.01.2006, when the Corporation decided to extend the benefit w.e.f 01.06.2012, Petitioners claiming the benefit w.e.f 01.01.2006 moved the authority to extend the same w.e.f 01.01.2006, in place of 01.04.2012. However, on the ground that the Petitioners are employees working under the Corporation and accordingly the State is not liable to pay the benefit, claim of the Petitioners was rejected vide different orders passed by Opp. Party No.1., so impugned in the present batch of Writ Petitions. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that the issue as to whether the Petitioners are Government employees or not has been set at rest in terms of the order passed by this Court in OJC No.8217 of 1999, so followed in Order dt.23.12.2010 in W.P.(C ) No.9579 of 2009. Relevant portion of order dt.23.12.2010 reads as follows: After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, we find that the question as to whether the petitioner continued to be a Government servant even after deputation to O.S.R.T.C. till he attained the age of superannuation has been set at rest by this Court in Page 2 of 7 // 3 // If the petitioner continued O.J.CNo.8217 of 1999. Even though the petitioner while working under O.S.R.T.C. on deputation retired on superannuation, the Court specifically held that he continued to be a Government servant while working on deputation till he attained the age superannuation under O.S.R.T.C. This judgment having not been challenged either by O.S.R.T.C. or by the State has attained finality and this question cannot be reopened again. The question as to whether who is liable to pay the dues of the petitioner need no further argument in view of the finding of this Court in the said writ application. to be a Government servant till his superannuation while on deputation to O.S.R.T.C. it is the Government, which has to bear all the dues of the petitioner and not O.S.R.T.C. Therefore, the Tribunal, while dropping the contempt proceeding was not justified in holding that the State Government is not liable to pay the dues of the petitioner for the period during which he worked under O.S.R.T.C: on deputation. The notification dated 17.4.2003 cannot have retrospective effect and the judgment of this Court as well as the Tribunal having been passed much prior to the said notification, it is the State and State alone which has to comply with the directions of this Court as well as the Tribunal passed in the aforesaid three, Original Applications as well as O.J.C.No.8217 of 1999. Accordingly, we allow the Writ application and set aside the impugned order. 4.3. It is also contended that in terms of the notification issued by the Transport Department on 05.04.2003, it was held that all such employees who are on deputation to the Corporation shall be treated to be on deputation without deputation allowance till their actual date of retirement/vacation of employment in the said Corporation for the purpose of getting their pension. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which Petitioners’ claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law and Petitioners are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f 01.01.2006 in place of 01.04.2012. Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 5. Basing on the instruction, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that since Petitioners are employees working under the Corporation and while allowing the Corporation to extend the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f 01.04.2012, Government took a decision that all additional financial liability will be borne by the Corporation from its own sources and Government shall not extend any financial benefit for this purpose, claim of the Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petition to get the benefit w.e.f 01.01.2006 was accordingly rejected. It is contended that since Government while allowing the Corporation to extend the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f 01.04.2012, took a decision that the financial liability will be borne by the Corporation, Government is not liable to pay any amount to the Petitioners w.e.f 1.1.2006. w5.1. Instruction provided by the Department reads as follows: Xxx xxx xxx In inviting reference to the subject mentioned above, I am directed to say that Hon’ble Court vide order dated learned Addl.Government 23.09.2025 Advocate to Annexure-2 of the writ petition. instructed for obtaining instruction with regard the In this regard I am directed to intimate that, the following Ex-STS employees filed writ petitions against the State of Odisha regarding payment of differential arrear dues out of Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2008 giving effect from 01.01.2006 inisread of 01.04.2012 by modifying the order No.12019 dated 26.07.2013 of OSRTC which are noted below for kind reference. Table to be inserted later Page 4 of 7 // 5 // Where it is submitted that as per Section 4 of the Road Transport Corporations Act 1950 the Corporation shall be a “Body Corporate” management would vest in the Board of Directors with a Committee M Board A regulation named as Orissa State Road and Transport Employees (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulations 197 has already been framed to regulate the pay and allowances for the employees Corporation. The Corporation is an independent commercial organisation and it is not as a Department of the State Government and its employees are also not govt servants Whereas the Odisha Revised Scale of Pay Rules are applicable only to the persons in whole time employment of the State Government. The said Rules are not applicable directly or indirectly to the employees of Boards. Commissions, Corporations and other Public Sector Undertakings of the State Government. When such Organizations revise the pay of their employees in different revised pay, they can follow the provision of fixation under the said Rules with certain conditions keeping in view of the profitability and financial position of the organisation. Whereas, the order of implementation of Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2008 we.f. 01.04.2012 in favour of the employees of OSRTC and STS employees on deputation to OSRTC was approved by the C&T Department with certain conditions vide Letter No.5525 dtd. 23.07.2013 that the additional financial liability on this account shall be borne by the OSRTC out of its own resources and Government shall not extend any financial support for this purpose and Government shall not be saddledd on with any financial or legal liabilities on account of revision of pay scale of the OSRTC employees since the OSRTC being an independent Corporation body has its own resources to meet the financial burden for revision of pay to their employees. (Copy of Letter No. 5525 dtd 23.07.2013 of C&T Department is attached herewith for kind reference) Whereas, Government in C&T Department has time and again clarified to the OSRTC that additional financial liabilities shall be borne by the OSRTC out of its own resources and Government shall not extend any financial support for payment of arrear dues on revised scale of pay and DA of retired as well as existing OSRTC employees. (Copy of Letter No. 3141 dtd.15.03.2024 of C&T Department is attached herewith for kind reference) Page 5 of 7 // 6 // Therefore, the above facts may kindly be appraised before the Hon’ble Court in compliance to the order no.2 dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Court in WP(C) No 25328 of 2025 and batch case. Xxx xxx xxx 5.2. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate accordingly contended that Petitioners are not eligible to get the benefit of revised scale w.e.f 01.01.2006, and the same has been rightly rejected by Opp. Party No.1 vide different orders in the case of the petitioners and it requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that all the Petitioners while continuing in STS, under the State, they were deputed to work in the Corporation at different point of time. It is found that this Court in OJC No.8217 of 2019 has already held that the erstwhile STS employees working on deputation to the Corporation will continue in the Government Service till they attain the age of superannuation under the Corporation. It is also found that earlier when the benefit of ORSP Rules, 1998 was not extended in favour of the present Petitioners w.e.f 01.01.1996, the same when was assailed by them before this Court, Government suo moto extended the benefit w.e.f 01.01.1996 in place of 16.02.2009. 6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the ground on which claim of the Petitioners has been rejected in the present batch of Writ Petition by Opp. Party No.1 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, while quashing the impugned order, rejecting the claim of Page 6 of 7 // 7 // the Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision, taking into account the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.9579 of 2009 on 23.12.2010 as well as the extension of the benefit of ORSP Rules, 1998 in favour of the Petitioners w.e.f 01.01.1996. Opp. Party No.1 is directed to take a fresh decision as directed hereinabove within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the result thereof to each of the Petitioners within the aforesaid time period. 6.2. All the Writ Petitions accordingly stand disposed of. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected cases. 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: 17-Nov-2025 18:43:35 Page 7 of 7