Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 494 (ORI)

Priyatama Singh v. State of Orissa

2012-11-09

B.K.NAYAK, B.P.DAS

body2012
JUDGMENT B.K. NAYAK, J. : The petitioner, who was a Member of the Orissa Public Service Commission (in short ‘the OPSC’), has filed this writ application challenging the vires of Regulation 4 (b) (i) of Orissa Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Orissa Regulation, 1952”) and also prays for quashing the order dated 17.03.2007 under Annexure-7 passed by the Government and further to direct the opposite parties, particularly, the State Government to re-determine the salary payable to the petitioner calculating the same @ Rs. 19,500/- per month from the date of her assumption of office as Member of the Commission. 2.While working as Principal, M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur the petitioner was appointed as a Member of the OPSC vide Government Notification dated 3.12.2002 under Annexure-1. Prior to her appointment as a Member of the OPSC, the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.18,650/- with other allowances. On her assumption of office as a Member of OPSC she was provisionally placed in the pay of Rs.19,500/- (fixed basic pay) with other allowances as per office order dated 18.01.2003 (Annexure-2) in terms of Regulation 2 (e) of the Orissa Regulation, 1952, which was made final by order dated 29.01.2005 under Annexure-4. With regard to pay of the Chairman and the Members of the OPSC Regulation 4 (a) & (b) of the Orissa Regulation, 1952 as amended in 1994, provides as under : “4. (a) The Chairman shall receive a pay of Rs.20,450 (fixed) a month and each of the members shall receive a pay of Rs.19,500 (fixed) a month. With regard to pay of the Chairman and the Members of the OPSC Regulation 4 (a) & (b) of the Orissa Regulation, 1952 as amended in 1994, provides as under : “4. (a) The Chairman shall receive a pay of Rs.20,450 (fixed) a month and each of the members shall receive a pay of Rs.19,500 (fixed) a month. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a)- (i)If a person is appointed as Chairman or Member while in Government service, he shall have to retire from Government service, before assuming the office of the Chairman or Member of the Commission, as the case may be, and in such case, he shall be entitled to receive the pay last drawn by him from Government service minus the gross amount of pension including any portion thereof which might have been communicated : Provided that in a case where such person was in receipt of pay less than the pay specified under clause (a) he shall be entitled to receive the pay so specified reduced by gross amount of pension including any portion thereof which might have been commuted, or “(ii)If a person, after retirement from service under the Government, is appointed as the Chairman or a Member, he shall also be entitled to receive the pay as specified in sub-clause (i).” In terms of the aforesaid Regulation 4 the pay of the petitioner as a Member of the OPSC was fixed at Rs.19,500/- (fixed pay) minus pension of Rs.9,325 = Rs.10,175 net pay per month. 3.It is stated by the petitioner that in the State of Punjab, the Service Conditions of the Members of the Punjab Public Service Commission are governed by the Punjab State Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1958 (in short ‘1958’ Regulation of Punjab) and the proviso to Regulation 5(1) of the said Regulation is parimateria to the provision of Regulation 4 (b) (i) of the Orissa Regulation, 1952. It is stated that one M.P. Pandove, who was working as Chief Auditor, Co-operative Societies, Punjab Government and was drawing salary of Rs.20,100/- was appointed as Member of the Punjab Public Service Commission vide Notification dated 8.12.2002 and was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.18,400-500-22,400/- and his pay was fixed at Rs.9,093 after deducting his pension of Rs.9,307/- as per order dated 07.12.2004 under Annexure-5. Mr. Mr. Pandove filed Civil Writ Petition No.85 of 2005 in the High Court in Punjab and Haryana for declaring the proviso to Regulation 5 (1) of the 1958 Regulations of Punjab as ultravires the Constitution being violative of Articles 14 and 16 and for quashing the pay fixation order dated 07.12.2004. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana by judgment dated 26.02.2005 allowed the writ application and quashed the pay fixation of M.P. Pandove. For passing the said judgment the High Court relied upon the judgment in the case of Ram Phal Singh v. State of Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No.15159 of 1996, which had reached finality without being challenged in the apex Court. It is stated that the judgment passed in the case of M.P. Pandove in Civil Writ Petition No.85 of 2005 was challenged by the State of Punjab before the apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.12336 of 2005 and the apex Court by their order dated 13.07.2005 dismissed the Special Leave petition and upheld the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 4.It is stated by the petitioner that the aforesaid judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was confirmed by the apex Court is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner inasmuch as Regulation 4 (b) (i) of the Orissa Regulation, 1952, is parimateria to the provision of Regulation 5 (1) of the 1958 Regulations of Punjab. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for implementing the decision of the Hon’ble apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (S) 12336 of 2005 in the case of M.P. Pandove and accordingly to re-fix and pay the salary of the petitioner without deducting the pension. Considering the representation of the petitioner, opposite party No.2 (OPSC) requested the Government to effect suitable amendment to Regulation 4 of the Orissa Regulation, 1952 and furnished a copy of such request dated 24.10.2006 to the petitioner which is at Annexure-6. However, by letter dated 17.03.2007 (Annexure-7) opposite party No.1 turned down the request of opposite party No.2 stating that the judgment of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the State of Orissa and therefore, there was no need to amend Regulation 4 of Orissa Regulation, 1952. However, by letter dated 17.03.2007 (Annexure-7) opposite party No.1 turned down the request of opposite party No.2 stating that the judgment of the Supreme Court is not applicable to the State of Orissa and therefore, there was no need to amend Regulation 4 of Orissa Regulation, 1952. 5.In the aforesaid scenario, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the provision of Regulation 4 (b) (i) of the Orissa Regulation, 1952 with regard to fixation of pay of a Member of the State Public Service Commission being in parimateria to the provision of Regulation 5 (1) of the 1958 Regulations of Punjab, opposite party No.1 was not correct in saying that the decision of the apex Court in M.P. Pandove’s case will have no application to Orissa. It is also submitted that the Regulation 4 (b) (i) is ultravires the Constitution as it is repugnant to Articles, 14, 16 and Article 318, which provides that the condition of service of a Member of a Public Service Commission shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. It is stated that the Regulation having provided for deducting the pension of the petitioner which she is entitled on retirement from past service rendered to the Government prior to her appointment as a Member of the OPSC amounts to making a provision which is to the disadvantage of the petitioner after her appointment as a Member of the OPSC. It is also submitted that though the petitioner retired as Member of OPSC during the pendency of the writ application, so far she has not received her pay and the differential benefit in the revised scale of pay as per recommendation of 6th pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006, though one Sri Partip Mohanty, who was appointed as Chairman of the OPSC after his retirement as the Chief Secretary of the Government of Orissa, has already been given the benefit of pay revision in the revised scale of pay with effect from 01.01.2006 and as such petitioner has been discriminated. It is also stated that one Mr. Sujit Das, who was also appointed as Chairman of OPSC after his retirement under the State Government has already received the benefit of pay revision with effect from 01.01.2006, but the petitioner’s case is not being considered in spite of representations sent to the opposite parties time and again. It is also stated that one Mr. Sujit Das, who was also appointed as Chairman of OPSC after his retirement under the State Government has already received the benefit of pay revision with effect from 01.01.2006, but the petitioner’s case is not being considered in spite of representations sent to the opposite parties time and again. 6.Opposite party No.1-State of Orissa has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the decision in the case of Ram Phal Singh v. State of Haryana has no application as because Regulation 6 (1) with its first proviso of the Haryan Regulation 1973, which was the subject matter of interpretation in the said case, did not provide for deduction of pension for fixation of remuneration of a Member of the Haryana Public Service Commission and as such the regulation not being in parimateria to Regulation 4(b) (i) of the Orissa Regulation, 1952, which provides for deduction of pension in the matter of fixation of pay. It is further stated that the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M.P. Pandove which was disposed of in terms of the decision in Ram Phal Singh’s case was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.12336 of 2005 on the ground that the impugned judgment of the High Court was based on concession and, therefore such order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be said to have laid down the law under Article 141 of the Constitution so as to be binding on the opposite parties. It is further stated that the petitioner prior to her appointment as Member of OPSC was drawing a pay of Rs.18,650/- per month with other allowances and on her joining as a Member of the OPSC her pay was fixed at Rs.19,500/- per month and as per Regulation 4 (b) (i) of the Orissa Regulation, 1952 her net pay came to Rs.10,175/- after deduction of the amount of pension of Rs.9,325/-. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of opposite party No.1 that Regulation 4(b) (i) does not violate Article 318 or Articles, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of opposite party No.1 that Regulation 4(b) (i) does not violate Article 318 or Articles, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7.The order dated 26.02.2005 of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M.P. Pandove v. State of Punjab and others (Civil Writ Petition No.85 of 2005), copy whereof is produced before us, is extracted hereunder : “Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the controversy in hand is squarely covered by the decision rendered in Ram Phal Singh v. State of Haryana and others (Civil Writ Petition No.15159 of 1996, decided on 08.09.2004). In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in Ram Phal Singh’s case (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.12.2004 (Annexure-P-6) is hereby quashed. The remuneration payable to the petitioner in furtherance of the instant order be calculated and released to the petitioner within a period of two months from today.” Annexure-P-6 to the said writ application was the pay fixation order of Mr. M.P. Pandove, petitioner therein, as Member of Punjab Public Service Commission, whereby his pay had been reduced by the amount of pension admissible to him as a Government Servant prior to his joining as Member of the Public Service Commission. As is apparent from the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the writ application was allowed because of the concession made by the State Government. The order was passed in terms of the decision in Ram Phal Singh’s case, which otherwise means that the reasoning given by the High Court in the judgment in Ram Phal Singh’s case with respect to the relevant provision of Haryana Regulation of 1973 have been accepted as the grounds for the order. 8.It is, therefore, necessary to see the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ram Phal Singh v. State of Haryana and others in Civil Writ Petition No.15159 of 1996. As it appears from the judgment the vires of first proviso to Regulation 6 (2) of the Haryana Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulation 1973 fell for consideration. It is apposite at this stage to see the provisions of Regulation 5 (1) with the proviso of Punjab Regulation 1958 and Regulation 6 (1), (2) and (3) with provisos of the Haryana Regulation 1973. It is apposite at this stage to see the provisions of Regulation 5 (1) with the proviso of Punjab Regulation 1958 and Regulation 6 (1), (2) and (3) with provisos of the Haryana Regulation 1973. Punjab Rule 5(1) of the Punjab Regulation 1958 provides as under : “5. (1) The Chairman shall receive pay in scale of Rs.22,400-525-24,500/- and other members in the pay scale of Rs.18,400-500-22,400/- and in addition thereto they shall also be entitled to get such other allowances as may be admissible from time to time to Government employees getting similar pay-Provided that - (i)If the Chairman or a Member at the time of appointment as such is a person, who has retired from service under the Central Government, a State Govt., a local authority, a University, a privately managed recognized school or an affiliated college or any other body wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Punjab Govt., and who is in receipt of or has received or has become entitled to receive and retirement by way of pension, gratuity, contributory provident fund or otherwise, the pay specified in this regulation shall be reduced by the gross amount of any kind of pension including any portion of the pensions which may have been commuted. Provided that the amount of pension not exceeding Rs.500/- per mensem, shall not be taken into consideration for fixing the pay.” Regulation 6 (1), (2) and (3) of the Haryana Regulation, 1973 is extracted herein below :- “6. Pay (1) The Chairman shall receive a remuneration of seven thousand rupees in a month and each of the other members a remuneration of Six thousand rupees a month. They shall also be entitled to such other allowance as may be admissible in future from time to time to government employees drawing the same pay in addition to four hundred rupees a month as car allowance, provided a car is maintained. 2. Chairman or the Member, if at the time of his appointment as such, is a retired Government employee, he will be entitled to the remuneration in sub-regulation (1) in addition to the pension sanctioned to him. Provided that the amount of remuneration plus the gross amount of pension or the pension equivalent to other forms of retirement benefits does not exceed the pay last drawn by him before his retirement or the remuneration mentioned in Sub-regulation (1) whichever is higher. Provided that the amount of remuneration plus the gross amount of pension or the pension equivalent to other forms of retirement benefits does not exceed the pay last drawn by him before his retirement or the remuneration mentioned in Sub-regulation (1) whichever is higher. Provided further that the total remuneration plus the gross of pension and the pension equivalent to other forms of retirement benefits, excluding the allowances, shall in no case exceed eight thousand rupees per month. 3. The Chairman or the member who at the time of his appointment as such is in the service of the central or State Government and does not exercise option under Sub-regulation (1) of regulation 9 shall be paid the remuneration drawing by him immediately before his appointment as Chairman or member as the case may be or the remuneration mentioned in sub-regulation (1) whichever is higher, till the date of his retirement from Government service in the normal course and thereafter his remuneration shall be regulated as provided in sub regulation (2).” 9.In Ram Phal Singh’s case fixation of remuneration was made by deduction of pension payable to him on account of service rendered by him under the Government in terms of first proviso to Regulation 6(2) of the Haryana Regulation 1973. Regulation 6 (1) stipulated a fixed remuneration of Rs.6,000/- for the Member of the Haryana Public Service Commission and also allowed such other allowances as may be admissible from time to time to the Government employees drawing the same pay. The word ‘remuneration’ used in the said Regulation apparently refers to the fixed basic pay. Sub regulation (2) of Regulation 6 has been enacted apparently keeping in view the Constitutional provision contained in the proviso under Article 316 (1) of the Constitution of India which stipulates that as nearly as may be one-half of the Members of every Public Service Commission shall be persons who at the dates of their respective appointment have held office for at least ten years either under the Government of India or under the Government of a State. In order to clarify the position as to the entitlement to remuneration by a retired Government servant entitled to pension for such service, who was appointed as a Member of the Public Service Commission, Sub regulation (2) read with its first proviso makes it clear that such retired Government servant subsequently becoming a Member of the Public Service Commission will be entitled to the fixed remuneration of Rs.6,000/- along with the pension, but this provision is subject to the first proviso which is in the nature of an exception. Sub Regulation (2) of Regulation 6 read with the first proviso would only mean that the remuneration plus pension of such a Member would not exceed the last pay drawn from the Government by the person at the time of his appointment as a Member or Rs.6,000/-, i.e., the remuneration specified in Regulation 6 (1), whichever is higher. Of course the proviso contemplates two categorise of Government employees becoming Members of the Public Service Commission. The first category comprises of those who prior to their appointment were drawing wages in excess of the remuneration (Rs.6,000/-) stipulated under Regulation 6(1) of the Regulation. The second category is referable to Members of the Public Service Commission, who prior to their appointment as members were drawing wages as Government servants at a level lower than Rs.6,000/-, i.e., the remuneration prescribed under Article 6 (1) of the Regulations. 10.While holding proviso to Regulation 6(2) of the Haryana Regulation, 1973 as ultra vires the Constitution and quashing the order fixing the remuneration of the petitioner therein by deducting pension, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held as under : “The petitioner in the instant case was drawing a wage under the government which was less than the remuneration stipulated under Regulations 6 (1) of the 1973 Regulations. It is not a matter of dispute that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the members of the commission in respect of their source of appointment are the same. It is also not a matter of dispute that duties assigned to the members of the Commission recruited from the two broad sources expressed in Article 316 (1) of the Constitution of India are inter changeable. It is, therefore, inevitable to conclude that the members of the Public Service Commission cannot be justifiably classified on the bass of the duties and responsibilities assigned to them. It is, therefore, inevitable to conclude that the members of the Public Service Commission cannot be justifiably classified on the bass of the duties and responsibilities assigned to them. The Apex Court in Marvyn Continho’s case (supra), Roshan Lal Tandon’s case (supra); S.M. Pandit’s case (supra) and in Ramchandra Shankar Doodhar’s case (supra) has repeatedly concluded that the source of recruitment of an incumbent cannot be basis of a valid classification. The written statement filed on behalf of the respondents does not disclose any justification on the basis of which different members of the Public Service Commission can be paid different levels of remuneration. Thus viewed, it is imperative to conclude that the impugned order which required the petitioner in the instant case Ram Phal Singh to be paid remuneration less than the one stipulated under Regulation 6(1) of the 1973 Regulations violates the principles of equal pay and equal work. In this behalf it would be pertinent to mention that while calculating the emoluments payable to the petitioner, deduction of pension payable to him (on account of service rendered by him under the government) as well as deduction of pension equivalent to Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity paid to him (for service rendered by him under the Government) are being made from the stipulated remuneration of Rs.6000/- under Regulation 6(1) of the 1973 Regulations. The aforesaid deductions comprising of pension, as well as pension equivalent to Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, constitute earnings of the petitioner in lieu of the service rendered by him under the government. The action of making the instant deductions amounts to depriving the petitioner of his existing rights, prior to his appointment as a member of the Public Service Commission. The aforesaid earnings are not relatable to the duties and responsibilities which a member of the Public Service Commission discharge as a member of the Public Service Commission. It is wholly unreasonable to make the aforesaid deductions from the remuneration of the petitioner because the aforesaid payments have no nexus to the duties and responsibilities of the petitioner as a member of the Public Service Commission. The only issue relevant for determining the emoluments payable to the members of the Public Service Commission is the duties and responsibilities discharged by them as members of the Public Service Commission. The only issue relevant for determining the emoluments payable to the members of the Public Service Commission is the duties and responsibilities discharged by them as members of the Public Service Commission. All the members of the Public Service Commission discharge the same duties collectively as a unified body and the duties and responsibilities of the members of the Public Service Commission are inter-changeable, there can, therefore, be no justification to pay them differently for the duties discharged by them. In view of the above, it is natural to conclude that the first proviso under Regulation 6(2) of the 1973 Regulations which envisages a stipulation wherein a number of the Public Service Commission fixed under Regulation 6(1) of the 1973 Regulations, is clearly ultra vires the provision of the Constitution of India and is therefore liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The petitioners and others who were drawing wages under the government at a level less than the remuneration under Regulation 6(1) of the 1973 Regulations (Prior to their appointment as members of the Public Service Commission), are hereby held to be entitled to the remuneration fixed under Regulation 6(1) of the 1973 Regulations, without any deduction therefrom.” 11.With respect we are unable to accept all the reasonings given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Phal Singh’s case as seen above because while deciding the vires of first proviso to Sub regulation (2) of Regulation 6 of Haryana Regulation, 1973, the High Court has not taken into consideration the second proviso to sub-Regulation (2) and also sub Regulation (3) of Regulation 6 of the Haryana Regulation, 1973. The dismissal of the SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P. Pandove’s case on the ground that the judgment of the High Court was based on concession cannot be said to have laid down the law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, as because it was a dismissal in limine and the High Court Judgment being an outcome of concession the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not inclined to entertain the SLP to consider the legality and propriety of the order of the High Court. 12.Regulation 4 (a) of the Orissa Regulation, 1952 prescribes fixed basic pay of Rs.19,500/- for the Member of the OPSC. 12.Regulation 4 (a) of the Orissa Regulation, 1952 prescribes fixed basic pay of Rs.19,500/- for the Member of the OPSC. Clause (b) of Regulation 4 of the said Regulation which starts with a non-abstante clause is referable to Government Servants, who are made Members of the OPSC. Sub clause (i) of Clause (b) provides the manner for fixation of pay of a Member, who was continuing in Government Service on the date of his appointment as a Member of OPSC. However, the proviso to the said sub Clause envisages that before assuming office of Member the person shall have to retire from Government Service and on assumption of office of Member he has to receive the last pay drawn by him where such pay was more than as stipulated in Clause (a) of Regulation 4, i.e., Rs.19,500/- minus the gross amount of pension. The proviso under Clause (i) also makes it clear that where on the date of assumption of office as Member the Government servant was in receipt of pay less than the pay specified under Clause (a) he shall be entitled to receive the pay specified under Clause (a) minus the gross amount of pension. Sub Clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Regulation 4 refers to the second category of Government Servants, who on the date of their appointment as Member of OPSC had already retired. Such retirement may be either on superannuation or voluntary retirement by the person concerned before he was appointed as a Member of the OPSC. Such a Member is entitled for pay to be fixed in the same manner as mentioned in Clause (i) which means that his pay as a Member of OPSC has also to be fixed by deduction of gross amount of pension from his basic pay. So far as the appointment of a Member of the Public Service Commission from amongst Government servants or retired Government servants is concerned, it is post retiral appointment or engagement in respect of which the policy of the Governments, Central as well as State, has always been to give salary to such an appointee in a manner which does not confer on him dual financial benefit. Therefore, salary in respect of all such post retiral appointments whether in Tribunals or in other bodies, are fixed as per the last pay drawn by them or the pay stipulated for the post in the concerned Rules or Regulations by deducting the pension. 13.Constitutionally two categories of persons are appointed as Members in the Public Service Commission as per proviso to Article 316(1), i.e, Government servants and other persons, who are not Government Servants. Persons who are not Government Servants shall have to receive the pay stipulated for the post of Member in Regulation 4 (a). Members who were Government Servants and are entitled to pension in respect of service rendered by them as such Government Servants, the Regulation stipulated for fixation of their pay by deducting the amount of pension from the pay stipulated under Regulation 4 (a) so that the total pay inclusive of pension does not exceed the pay prescribed in the Regulation. That way both categories of Members get equal pay and are treated equally and the Government servants are not doubly benefited by way of getting the full pay for the post of Member as well as the amount of pension which is admissible to them as Government Servants. Deduction of pension in fixation of pay can not therefore be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The fixation of pay, however, may cause hardship to a person, who is appointed as a Member of the OPSC while continuing in Government Service in case where had the person concerned continued in service till superannuation would have received a pay more than what has bene stipulated for a Member of OPSC under Regulation 4 (a), i.e. Rs.19,500/-. The Regulation which does not make a provision to take care of such a situation would be detrimental to his interest. A Government Servant in service, who accepts the appointment of office of the Member of the OPSC does not consciously knowing well that he has to continue in the post carrying a fixed basic pay of Rs.19,500/- till he completes the tenure of six years or till he attains the age of 62 years whichever is earlier unless before attaining such age or completing the tenure the pay for the post gets revised. This hardship cannot be said to be a variation of the service condition after appointment of the person as Member of the Commission as provided in the proviso to Article 318 (b) of the Constitution. In such view of the matter, the impugned regulation cannot be said to be ultra vires the Constitution. 14.Admittedly, on the date of appointment as Member of OPSC in 2002 the petitioner was drawing a pay of Rs.18,650/- in the scale of pay of Rs.16,400-450-20,000/-. In ordinary course she would have retired on superannuation in Government service in 2006. However, with effect from January, 2006 as per the State Government Resolution No.1/2012-5505WH dated 03.03.2010 under Annexure-10 of the Health and Family Welfare Department the aforesaid scale has been revised to Rs.37,400/- Rs.67,000/- with AGP of Rs.10,000/-. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner that one Sri Pradip Mohanty, IAS, who after his retirement as Chief Secretary was appointed as the Chairman of OPSC was allowed a pay of Rs.26,000/- (pay last drawn in Govt.) minus the gross amount of pension of Rs.13,000/-. As per pay revision of IAS Officers w.e.f. 01.01.2006 the pay of Rs.26,000/- was revised to Rs.80,000/- and, therefore, pay of Mr. Mohanty as Chairman of OPSC has been fixed at Rs.80,000/- reduced by the gross amount of pension of Rs.40,000/- with effect from 01.01.2006 vide Government of Orissa, G.A. Department office order dated 26.06.2009 under Annexure-9.. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though there is revision of pay scale which the petitioner was drawing as a Government Servant on the date of her assumption of office as the Member of the OPSC, her pay as such Member has not been fixed in the revised scale as has been done in the case of Mr. Pratip Mohanty. 15.The pay stipulated for the Chairman and the Member of the OPSC under Regulation 4 (a) of the Orissa Regulation 1952 as amended in 1994 has apparently not been revised or amended thereafter even though pay of Government employees under the Centre as well as State has already been revised with effect from 01.01.2006. Despite such non-revision the pay of Mr. Pratip Mohanty, the Chairman of the OPSC was re-fixed/revised as per order under Annexure-9 at Rs.80,000/- (fixed) per month reduced by the gross amount revised pension. Despite such non-revision the pay of Mr. Pratip Mohanty, the Chairman of the OPSC was re-fixed/revised as per order under Annexure-9 at Rs.80,000/- (fixed) per month reduced by the gross amount revised pension. The petitioner, however, being a Member of the OPSC has not been extended such benefit even though there is a revision of her previous pay scale as per Resolution of Health and Family Welfare Department dated 03.03.2010. Her pension also has not been revised as per the revised scale. This definitely amounts to discrimination. We are therefore, of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the proportionate revision of her pay of Rs.19,500/- as per revision of pay scale under resolution at Annexure-10 and also revision of her pension in accordance with such revision of pay should also be done and her pay be fixed by deducting such revised pension from her revised pay with effect from 01.01.2006 and be paid to her. The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today. 16.The writ application is accordingly allowed partly to the extent indicated above. B.P. DAS, J.I agree. Application allowed in part.