The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.35316 of 2021 Sunakar Jena …. Petitioner Mr. Mihir Kanta Rath, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D. Nayak, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Parties Mr. Tarun Patnaik, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 15.07.2024 Order No. 05. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Challenging an order dated 29.11.2018 passed by opposite party no.1-Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department (PR & DW Department), whereby the claim for grant of Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- is rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition invoking provisions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:- ii) “Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances stated above the petitioner humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to: i) Quash the impugned order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the opposite party no.1 under Annexure-7. Allow the writ petition and direct the opp. Party to sanction and release the differential arrear salary as well as the grade pay of Rs.4,600/- in favour of the petitioner with effect from 08.08.2013 i.e. from the date of his eligibility as per the Government Resolution. to order/orders direction/directions as would found fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. And as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray.” appropriate other pass iii) any 3. The petitioner joined in the District Rural Development Agency (D.R.D.A.), Khurda as Statistical Investigator-cum-Data Entry Operator on 15.12.1997. Page 1 of 6 4. The C.D. and R.R. Department vide Annexure-3, i.e., Letter No.11269-IRD-I(E)-42/89/CD formulated the District Rural Development Agency Employees Service Regulations, whereby under Chapter-III, Clause-21 of the Service Condition, it has been indicated that the pay, Dearness Allowances, House Rent Allowances etc. attached to the posts under the Agency shall be the same as prescribed by the Government in similar posts in the Government from time to time. 5. The post of Statistical Investigator-cum-Data Entry Operator in D.R.D.A. is re-designated as Data Entry Operator-cum- Programme Officer. 6. The claim of the petitioner for enhancement of the Grade Pay as that is granted to Statistical Investigator of the Planning and Convergence (P & C) Department, has been rejected by the Principal Secretary to the Government in PR & DW Department in compliance of direction contained in the order dated 09.05.2018
Legal Reasoning
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7576 of 2018. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel referred to para-6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.1 on 29.11.2022, which reads as under:-
Decision
“***6. That, in reply to averments made in paragraphs-5 to 8 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that, Government of India have permitted two categories of posts namely two posts of Investigator and one post of Statistical Investigator. State Government had initially sanctioned 2 (two) posts of Statistical Investigator for each DRDA which were filled up by Statistical Investigators on deputation from Planning and Convergence Department (P & C Deptt.). They are employees of Planning and Convergence Department, Govt. of Odisha. Their cadre and service matter are completely controlled by Planning and Convergence Department of State Government. Keeping in view the need of data entry work for Computer supplied to DRDAs Government decided to utilize the third post of S.I. for the same Page 2 of 6 and accordingly directed the DRDAs to fill up the said post with the designation as SI-cum-DEO with Scale of Pay Rs.1050-35- 1120-40-1320-EB-40-1560-EB-45-1785-50-2085/- with usual DA & ADA as admissible to State Government Employees. The Petitioner has given affidavit that he was selected and appointed as SI-cum-DEO as direct recruited employee of DRDA, Khurda. Later on keeping in view the increase in computer work in DRDAs the post was re-designated as DEO-cum-Programme Officer and thereafter Programme Officer from 14.12.2004. Now the petitioner is continuing as Programme Officer in DRDA, Khurda. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner does not hold the post of Statistical Investigator so as to claim parity and treatment with that of Statistical Investigator in terms of FD Resolution under Annexure-4 to the writ petition so far as it relates to revision of Grade pay of Statistical Investigator of P & C and other Department and pursuant to Clause-21 of the DRDA Employees Service Regulation, 1989. The petitioners are also not performing the same function like that of the Statistical Investigator. As such, the contention made by the petitioner has no force in law and is liable to be rejected.” 7.1. He further submitted that the Programme Officer in D.R.D.A. is not performing the same function as that of Statistical Investigator in P & C Department. 7.2. Objecting to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of re-designation of post, the effect of the Regulation as mentioned above cannot be taken away. 8. Perused the record. This Court vide order dated 27.06.2023 directed the learned Additional Standing Counsel for State-opposite parties to file an affidavit. The said order is quoted hereunder:- “*** 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite parties. 3. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-opposite parties seeks some time to obtain specific instruction with regard to the fact that whether the Statistical Investigator-cum-Data Entry Operator is the same post in the same cadre as Data Entry Operator-cum-Programme Officer. Further, it is directed to obtain instruction on a Clause-21 under Chapter-III of the DRDA Employees Service Rules, 1989. Page 3 of 6 Further, learned Additional Standing Counsel shall also obtain instruction whether the petitioner is employee of the Planning and Convergence Department, Government of Odisha or not. Further, in the event the petitioner has been absorbed in the DRDA, learned Additional Standing Counsel is directed to find out as to pay scale of similar employees in the Planning and Convergence Department and, accordingly, file an affidavit before this Court by the next date.” 9. In pursuance of the said order, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.1 on 19.07.2023, wherein at para-6, the following has been stated:- “***6. That, in compliance of the said Order No.2 dated 27.06.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.35316 of 2021, it is humbly submitted that Government of India had permitted two categories of posts namely two posts of Investigator and one post of Statistical Investigator. State Government had initially sanctioned 2 (two) posts of Statistical Investigator for each DRDA which were filled up by Statistical Investigators on deputation from Planning and Convergence Department (P & C Deptt.). They are employees of Planning and Convergence Department, Govt. of Odisha. Their cadre and service matter are completely controlled by Planning and Convergence Department of State Government. Keeping in view the need of data entry work for computer supplied to DRDAs Government decided to utilize the third post of S.I. for the same and accordingly directed the DRDAs to fill up the said post with the designation as SI-cum-DEO with Scale of Pay Rs.1050-35- 1120-40-1320-EB-40-1560-EB-45-1785-50-2085/- with usual DA & ADA as admissible to State Government Employees. Later on keeping in view the increase in computer work in DRDAs the post re-designated as DEO-cum-Programme Officer and was thereafter Programme Officer the petitioner is continuing as Programme Officer in DRDA, Khurda.” from 14.12.2004. Now 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the said paragraph submitted that the opposite party no.1 had admitted that the post of Statistical Investigator in DRDAs was “re-designated as DEO-cum-Programme Officer and the petitioner was continued as Programme Officer in DRDA, Khurda”. In view of aforesaid Page 4 of 6 affidavit conceding the fact that increase in computer work in DRDA, the post of Statistical Investigator-cum-Data Entry Operator has been re-designated and no dispute is raised by the opposite parties nor is any material placed by the learned Additional Standing Counsel to depict that there is no similarity in both the jobs. This Court is, therefore, inclined to accede to the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that mere re-designation of post does not indicate that the functions and duties of Statistical Investigator-cum-Data Entry Operator and Programme Officer- cum-Data Entry Operator are different. 11. Considering the facts and submissions of learned counsels for both the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the order of rejection dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government in PR & DW Department is not tenable. By way of impugned order, the grievance of the petitioner to enhance the Grade Pay from Rs.4200/ to Rs.4600/- in the pay scale of Rs.9,300/- to Rs.34,800/- with effect from 08.08.2013 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has been working as Programme officer in DRDA and not performing similar nature of work as assigned to the Statistical Investigator in P & C Department. Such stance appears to be contradictory to what is affirmed in the affidavit dated 19.07.2023. However, the learned Additional Standing Counsel did not demonstrate the distinction between the functions of Programme Officer vis-a-vis Statistical Investigator. 12. As a consequence of the above discussion, the order dated 29.11.2018 vide Annexure-7 is set aside taking into consideration Page 5 of 6 the affidavit dated 19.07.2023 filed by opposite party no.1- Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department. This Court, therefore, directs the opposite party no.1 to pass fresh order within a period of two months from today in the light of above discussion and the said order be communicated to the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of passing of the order. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Laxmikant (M.S. Raman) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jul-2024 17:54:37 Page 6 of 6