Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 432 (ORI)

Jagannath Sahoo v. State of Odisha

2015-07-24

S.N.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT S.N.PRASAD, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to release benefit of revision in pay scale as per Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2008 (hereinafter “Rules, 2008) notified on 24.12.2008 implemented w.e.f. 1.1.2006. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was discharging his duty under Orissa State Housing Board (in short ‘OSHB’) as junior Project Engineer (Elect.). 4. OSHB has implemented a Scheme for separation of its employees under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short ‘VRS’) by adopting the decision of Public Enterprises Department of the State of Odisha sought for an option, the petitioner has given his option for separation under VRS. In the meanwhile, Sixth recommendation of Central Revision in Pay Scale has been adopted by the State of Odisha by virtue of Rules, 2008 notified on 24.12.2008 implemented w.e.f. 1.1.2006. 5. The case of the petitioner is that he has made application for separation under VRS on 29.11.2008 but it was not accepted and before its acceptance, the petitioner has represented before the authorities vide his representation dated 9.1.2009 for release of arrears of differences of salary by virtue of adoption of revision in pay scale by promulgating ORSP Rules, 2008 notified on 24.12.2008 implemented w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and as such it was requested before the authorities to calculate the benefit under VRS on the basis of the revised pay scale. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner was separated on 12.01.2009 as contained in the Office Order No.472 dated 12.01.2009 (Annexure-6). The petitioner has made an appeal for calculation of VRS package on the basis of new revised pay scale after his relieve from service vide representation dated 21.02.2009, 15.04.2009 and 16.03.2012 but however, to no effect. The authorities when have taken no decision, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 7. This Court vide order dated 9.9.2014 was directed tagging this case along with W.P.(C) Nos. 2706 of 2011 and 12232 of 2010. 8. The authorities when have taken no decision, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 7. This Court vide order dated 9.9.2014 was directed tagging this case along with W.P.(C) Nos. 2706 of 2011 and 12232 of 2010. 8. It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for OSHB stand taken in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.2706 of 2011 will be adopted in this case, wherein stand has been taken by the OSHB that the petitioner is not entitled to be given the benefit of revision in pay scale on account of the fact the ORSP Rules, 2008 has been notified on 24.12.2008 whereas the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2706 of 2011 has been relieved w.e.f. 10.11.2008. 9. Thus stand in W.P.(C) No.2706 of 2011 has been taken for denial of the claim is that since on 24.12.2008, the petitioner has been relieved under VRS as such he will not be entitled to get benefit of revision in pay scale. 10. The fact of this case is entirely different because in this case the petitioner has applied for VRS on 29.11.2008 which was not accepted as on promulgation of Rules, 2008 which was notified on 24.12.2008 the petitioner in this case has been relieved w.e.f. 12.01.2009 as would be evident from Annexure-6. 11. Since the petitioner was on roll of service on 24.12.2008, the day when the provision of ORSP Rules has been adopted hence the facts of this case is entirely different to the facts in W.P.(C) No. 2706 of 2011 because in W.P.(C) No. 2706 of 2011 and W.P. (C) No. 12232 of 2010, the petitioners of the said writ petitions have been superannuated w.e.f. 10.11.2008 and 30.06.2008 but here in this case, the petitioner was relieved on 12.01.2009 after implementation of Rules, 2008. 12. In view of the factual position, in this case, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the OSHB delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Bindal and another vrs. Union of India and others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 163 will not be applicable because ratio laid down in the said case is that after separation when monetary benefit has been given under VRS benefit, the consequential revision in pay scale cannot be granted to employees after separation of the employees from service. Likewise, judgment rendered in the case of Manojbhai N. Shah and others vrs. Likewise, judgment rendered in the case of Manojbhai N. Shah and others vrs. Union of India and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 482 will also not applicable in the factual aspect of this writ petition. 13. In these above referred judgment their lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that after opting and retiring under VRS, benefit of revision in pay scale cannot be allowed to be given. 14. But here, facts of the case is quite different since the petitioner’s VRS has not been accepted and before its acceptance it cannot be presumed that an employee who has opted for separation under VRS, the same would be accepted till it is communicated by the authority regarding acceptance. Here the petitioner’s option for VRS admittedly was accepted on 12.01.2009 i.e., after promulgation of ORSP Rules, 2008 i.e., 24.12.2008. 15. In the backdrop of factual position of these cases as narrated hereinabove, since the petitioner was on roll of service as on 24.12.2008 hence, the petitioner is entitled to be given the revision in pay scale provided under ORSP Rules, 2008. 16. Hence, the authorities are directed to release differential amount in favour of the petitioner within a reasonable period preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed.