The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.36341 of 2022 Swapna Sekhar Das Petitioner …. Mr.J.K.Mahapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. A.Behera, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 04.01.2023 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel. Perused the writ application and the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ application has been filed with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule “NISI” to the Opp.Parties to show cause as to :- i) Why the impugned order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-13 in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal; and Page 1 of 2 // 2 // ii) Why the Opposite Parties will not be directed to extend the benefit of 1st, 2nd & 3rd RACP on completion of 10,20 & 30 years of service in favour of the Petitioner within a stipulated time, and iii) Why the Opposite Parties will not be directed to sanction and disburse the differential salary on such sanction of RACP within a stipulated time; And if the Opp.Parties do not show cause then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs and any other order as deem fit be passed; 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Junior Supervisor-cum- Cadre Secretary in United Puri Nimapara Central Co-operative Bank Ltd vide order dated 27.05.1983 and pursuant to the said order, the Petitioner joined in his post on 06.06.1983. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that while working as Cadre Secretary as per order dated 22.02.2003 of the Government in the Co-operation Department all Cadre Secretaries working in different Central Co-operative Banks of the State were treated as employees of the financing bank and treated as Grade-VI(A) employees of the present bank. Thereafter a gradation list was prepared and the Petitioner’s name has been reflected in the said gradation list and the date of retirement of the Petitioner has been indicated as 31.10.2016. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that while working as Junior Supervisor/Banking Assistant, the Petitioner and other employees of the Opposite Parties were sanctioned all the benefits of Revised Pay Scale as recommended by 6th Pay Commission with effect from October, 2015. However, the Petitioner although was eligible to get Rs.2000/- as Grade Pay he was being paid Rs.1900/- as Grade Pay. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that although the Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get RACP benefit pursuant to the Finance Department Resolution dated Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 06.02.2013, the Opposite Party-authorities never extended such benefit in favour of the Petitioner or any employees working in Opposite Party- Bank. Again, another gradation list was prepared on 28.06.2016 where the Petitioner’s name appears in Sl.No.16 and the Petitioner had been sanctioned the Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- instead of Rs.2000/- as per the provisions of ORSP Rules. Thereafter, the Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.10.2016. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the employees of Central Co-operative Bank in the State were demanding implementation of RACP Scheme and extension of benefit under such scheme to the employees of Central Co-operative Bank. Accordingly, Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Odisha, Opposite Party No.2 vide order dated 02.08.2019 and subsequently order dated 19.08.2019 and 29.11.2019 took a decision to extend the RACP benefit to the employees working in different Central Co-operative Banks in the State of Odisha. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on 20.12.2019 the Opposite Party No.2 took a decision whereby the Grade Pay payable to the Central Co-operative Bank employees were revised and on perusal of the Letter dated 20.12.2019 under Annexure-10 it appears that the same is in respect of one Satyananda Biswal, an employee of Khurda Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., who has been extended the benefit of revised Grade Pay of Rs.2000/-, Rs.2800/-, Rs.4200/- and Rs.4600/- on completion of 10, 20 & 30 years of qualifying service and he has been extended such benefit from the date of regularization and promotion in service. 6. So far as the present Petitioner is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has submitted a representation before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The Registrar, Page 3 of 5 // 4 // Co-operative Societies after considering the representation of the Petitioner rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that in view of Order No.25742 dated 29.11.2019 of RCS, Odisha, the RACP benefit shall be given effect to the employees of all Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. including the Petitioner Bank from the date on which the benefit of 7th Pay Commission is implemented and the Opposite Party-Bank has allowed the 7th Pay Commission scale in favour of the employees of the Bank with effect from 29.11.2019. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.2 has rejected the claim on the ground that the Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit as he has retired much prior to December, 2019 i.e. 31.10.2019. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted before this Court that the decision taken by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Annexure-13 vide order dated 12.02.2021 is in consonance with his earlier order dated 29.11.2019 under Annexure-9. Therefore, Opposite Party No.2 has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the Petitioner. He further contended that the letter which the Petitioner is relying i.e. the letter dated 20.12.2019 under Annexure-10 is in respect of an employee of different Central Co-operative Bank. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that the writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same be dismissed. 8. In reply to the submissions made by the learned Additional Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the Petitioner clarifies that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Odisha being the supreme authority so far as the Co-operative Banks in the State of Odisha is concerned, is not expected to apply different standards in respect of different Co-operative Banks in the State of Odisha. Further, referring to letter under Annexure- 10, he submitted that the benefit of revised Grade Pay under RACP Page 4 of 5 // 5 // scheme has been extended in favour of one Satyananda Biswal, an employee of Khurda Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Khurda. Therefore, he contends that the Petitioner has been grossly discriminated and the conduct of the Opposite Parties is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays that the decision under Annexure-13 is erroneous and unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the same authority cannot adopt different standards for same type of employees working in two different banks. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials placed before this Court at the stage of admission and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the matter at the stage of admission without expressing any opinion by directing the Petitioner to raise the issue of discrimination by setting aside the order dated 20.12.2019 under Annexure-10 before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies by filing a fresh representation within a period of two weeks from today. In the event such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to act on production of certified copy of this order, who shall take a decision by passing a speaking and reasoned order. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application is disposed of. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. RKS (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5