9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OAS Class-I (Jr.) having their placement in the gradation list at sl. no. 494 and sl. No. 496 respectively and in the said cadre also the petitioner was senior to Shri Mohanty. Therefore, sub-clause (a) of the resolution is satisfied. According to sub-clause (b), the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts, in which they are entitled to draw pay, should be identical. To that extent, there is no dispute that scales of pay of OAS Class-II and OAS Class-I (Jr) are identical to each other and accordingly the petitioner's scale of pay was fixed in terms of said scales of pay in the respective cadre. The petitioner has satisfied this condition to be eligible to get the benefit of stepping up of pay. Rule-11 of the Orissa Service Code states that cadre means, strength of service or part of service sanctioned as a separate unit. Therefore, the petitioner and Shri Mohanty, who was junior to the petitioner, both belonging to OAS Class-II cadre, become the strength of service or part of service sanctioned as a separate unit. More so, their scale of pay in lower or higher post in which they entitled to draw pay should be identical - It is trite-law that if no specific definition ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate JUDGMENT Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The legality and propriety of the order dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar dismissing the O.A. No. 625 of 1998, which was filed by the petitioner seeking stepping up of his pay at par with his junior, is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 2. The petitioner, while serving as Under Secretary in Orissa Administrative Service (OAS) Class-I (Jr.), approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal seeking stepping of up of his pay at par with his junior-Ananta Charan Mohanty, who was also serving as OAS Class-I (Jr.). The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he joined as a Lower Division Assistant in Revenue and Excise Department on 30.07.1964, whereas his junior Ananta Charan Mohanty joined as Junior Typist on 08.04.1959. Subsequently, both of them were brought over to the Gr.I. Assistant Cadre in Revenue and Exercise Department during the period from 28.04.1966 to 30.06.1976. The petitioner was inducted to OAS Class-II cadre, from the cadre of Gr.I. Assistant, on 09.07.1979, and promoted to OAS Class-I (Jr) with effect from 15.09.1994, whereas Shri Mohanty was inducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned in accordance with the instruction as well as conditions as stipulated in Finance Department Resolution No. 19168-F dt. 3.5.1985 (Annexure-3) of the original application. The applicant does not confirm to all the conditions stipulated in Finance Department Resolution referred to above. Had Sri. Mohapatra submitted any representation earlier as has been averred to, the same would have been examined in details and communicated with necessary orders of Govt. thereon beforehand. The fact of the case is that originally the applicant joined as L.D. Assistant in Revenue and Excise Department on 30.7.64 whereas his counterpart, Sri. Ananda Charan Mohanty joined in the Department as a junior Typist on 8.4.59. His counterpart, Sri. Mohanty was brought over to the Asst. Cadre of the Department on 2.12.61 as the L.D. Assistant and on 1.3.64; he was promoted to the cadre of Gr. II Assistant with his basic pay of Rs. 145/- P.M. whereas the applicant joined as the L.D. Assistant on 30.7.64 and was drawing pay of Rs. 90/- only. Since then Sri. Mohanty has been drawing higher pay than the applicant all among till now as would be evident from the statement which is filled as Annexure-A to thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placement at sl. no. 494 and Shri Mohanty was placed at sl. no. 496. The basic pay scale was granted to the petitioner as well as Shri Mohanty, at Rs. 525-1150/- in OAS Class-II cadre and Rs. 2200-4000/- in OAS Class-I (Jr) cadre. Consequently, the salary of the petitioner in OAS Class-II was fixed at Rs. 575/-, whereas the salary of Shri Mohanty in OAS Class-II was fixed at Rs. 730/-. Thereafter, the salary of the petitioner in OAS Class-I (Jr) was fixed at Rs. 3000/-, whereas the salary of Shri Mohanty in OAS Class-I (Jr) was fixed at Rs. 3400/-. As a consequence thereof, it is contended that the tribunal has failed to appreciate the factual matrix and proceeded to decide the matter on a wrong premises. There may be entry into OAS Class-II cadre from different cadres, but once they joined in the OAS Class-II cadre, the pay of the senior (petitioner) has to be at par with his junior (Shri Mohanty). In subsequent promotional posts also, such benefit should have been granted to the petitioner. It is further contended that for similarly situated employees, if such benefit has already been extended, why discrimination shall be made in respect of the petitioner, which would violate Art ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85 of the Government of Odisha in Finance Department is extracted hereunder:- No. CS-I-80/85. 19168/F. GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA FINANCE DEPARTMENT ... RESOLUTION. Dated, the 3 Bhubaneswar, May 1985. Subject: STEPPING UP OF PAY OF THE SENIOR OFFICER TO THAT OF HIS JUNIOR-INSTRUCTION REGARDING Ref. Resolution i) No. 8353, CS-I-18/68/F., dt 16th March, 1698. ii) No. CS-I-6/75-20741/F., dt. 26th May, 1975. iii) No. CS-I-6/75-18728-F., dt 14th April, 1976. iv) No. 41665-CS-I/31/78/F., dt. 29th July, 1978. In the supersession of all circulars and instructions on the subject and In line with the instruction issued in this regard by the Government of India, the Governor, has been pleased to decide that the benefit of stepping up of pay should be allowed to the Senior only in the case of promotion to the higher post for removing the anomalies on account of fixation of pay under Rule, 47(b) or (c) of the O.S.C. Where a Senior Government Servant promoted or appointed to a higher post, draws less pay in that post than his junior who was promoted or appointed to the higher post subsequently, the pay of the Senior Officer in the higher post should be stepped u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... although the petitioner and Shri Mohanty had belonged to two different cadres, but, when they were promoted to OAS Class-II cadre, they belonged to same cadre and their posts were identical, and undisputedly the petitioner was senior to Shri Mohanty in the gradation list having placement at sl. no. 327 and sl. No. 329 respectively. Subsequently, both of them were promoted to the cadre of OAS Class-I (Jr.) having their placement in the gradation list at sl. no. 494 and sl. No. 496 respectively and in the said cadre also the petitioner was senior to Shri Mohanty. Therefore, sub-clause (a) of the resolution is satisfied. According to sub-clause (b), the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts, in which they are entitled to draw pay, should be identical. To that extent, there is no dispute that scales of pay of OAS Class-II and OAS Class-I (Jr) are identical to each other and accordingly the petitioner's scale of pay was fixed in terms of said scales of pay in the respective cadre. The petitioner has satisfied this condition to be eligible to get the benefit of stepping up of pay. As per sub-clause (c), the Senior Officer is senior to the Junior Officer both in the lower post a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper perspective inasmuch as the Finance Department Resolution dated 03.05.1985 is fully applicable to the petitioner as both the petitioner and Shri Mohanty, who is admittedly junior to the petitioner, belong to the same cadre of OAS Class-II and subsequently promoted to OAS Class-I (Jr) and their appointment is identical in the same cadre. 10. Rule-11 of the Orissa Service Code states that cadre means, strength of service or part of service sanctioned as a separate unit. Therefore, the petitioner and Shri Mohanty, who was junior to the petitioner, both belonging to OAS Class-II cadre, become the strength of service or part of service sanctioned as a separate unit. More so, their scale of pay in lower or higher post in which they entitled to draw pay should be identical. More specifically, the petitioner is a senior officer and senior to his junior officer Shri Mohanty both in the lower post, i.e. OAS Class-II as well as in the higher post, i.e. OAS Class-I (Jr). But the junior officer Shri Mohanty was drawing higher rate of pay than that of the pay of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for stepping up of his pay, which is well in consonance of the resolution d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd must have a connection with an agricultural user or purpose. It is on the nature of user that the meanings of agricultural purpose and agriculture becomes relevant. It is true that, in Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy's case (supra), this Court pointed out that meanings of words used in Acts of Parliament are not necessarily to be gathered from dictionaries which are not authorities on what Parliament must have meant. Nevertheless, it was also indicated there that, where there is nothing better to rely upon, dictionaries may be used as an aid to resolve an ambiguity. The ordinary dictionary meaning cannot be discarded simply because it is given in a dictionary. To do that would be to destroy the literal rule of interpretation. This is a basic rule relying upon the ordinary dictionary meaning which, in the absence of some overriding or special reasons to justify a departure,. must prevail. 17. In State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd., 1985 Supp SCC 280, the apex Court held as follows:- The dictionary meaning of a word cannot be looked at where that word has been statutorily defined or judicially interpreted but where there is no such definition or interpreta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 40992/R dated 1.9.1990. Besides him, the opposite parties had also allowed a number of OAS officers to step up pay at par with their juniors, who were drawing higher pay from time to time in lower post/cadre. A list of such officers had also been annexed to O.A. No. 133 of 2003 (Ramesh Chandra Mishra vrs. State of Orissa) as Annexure-25, which had not been disputed by the State opposite parties. Thereby, there is discrimination with regard to extension of similar benefits to the petitioner, which violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. And as such, the tribunal has not dealt with such part of the contention raised by the petitioner while passing the impugned order. Thereby, there is non-application of mind by the tribunal while passing such order. As the undisputed fact is that the junior to the petitioner, namely, Shri A.C. Mohanty was drawing higher pay in OAS Class-II cadre, before being promoted to OAS Class-I (Jr) cadre, therefore, the petitioner ought to have asked for stepping up of his pay much earlier when both of them were continuing in OAS Class-II cadre itself. Having not done so and making such a claim after being promoted to OAS Class-I (Jr.) cadre, the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
