Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 632 (ORI)

Government of Odisha v. Arun Kumar Bhadra

2017-06-27

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2017
JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India having been filed by the Government of Odisha whereby and where under the order passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A.Nos. 1659 and 1459 of 2011 disposed of on 9.7.2014 is under challenge wherein the Tribunal while quashing the decision of the Finance Department as contained in Office Memorandum No.Pen-181/08/3667/F dated 19.1.2009 has referred the matter to a duly constituted Fitment Committee for taking endeavour to remove the anomalies pointed out in the order and to issue a fresh memorandum through their Finance Department applying an equitable formula for enhancement of the pension of the Joint Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries who retired prior to 1.1.2006. 2. The fact leading to institution of the case before the Tribunal is with regard to removal of anomalies among the Government employees retired from the State Government while serving in the rank of Joint Secretaries, retired from 1.1.2006 before Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2008 came into force. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the rival submissions of the parties while disposing of the original applications has referred the matter before the Fitment Committee to take steps for removal of anomalies and to issue fresh memorandum through the Finance Department. 3. The State Government has challenged the said order on the ground that the Tribunal has committed an error in referring the matter before the Fitment Committee since according to the State Government there cannot be existence of Fitment Committee the moment OSRP Rules, 2008 has been implemented by the State Government. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that on the basis the Tribunal ought to have issued direction upon the State Government to constitute Anomaly Committee to look into the matter but instead of doing so direction for constitution of Fitment Committee has been passed. On the other hand, Mr. Kali Prasanna Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay, and also on the ground that the instant writ petition has been filed after notice has been issued by the Tribunal in the contempt matter which has been filed by the applicants for non-compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal in the two original applications. 4. 4. In course of argument learned Additional Government Advocate has very fairly submitted that the matter can be looked into by the duly constituted Anomaly Committee and by making this submission it has been argued that the matter may be disposed of at this stage. Learned counsel representing the applicants/opposite parties has raised no objection in this regard. 5. We, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, are of the opinion that since the Tribunal has directed the State Government to constitute a Fitment Committee to remove the anomalies in fixation of retirement benefits of the concerned applicants and as such according to us there is no reason to interfere at this stage. However, while referring the matter before the State Government directing the State to constitute a Fitment Committee has not taken into consideration the fact that the Fitment Committee cannot be constituted after implementation of the recommendation of Pay Commission, rather if there is anomaly in fixation of pay or other grievances of the concerned employees, the State Government can constitute Anomaly Committee, hence we intend to modify the order passed by the Tribunal wherein direction has been passed upon the State Government to constitute Fitment Committee to look into the anomalies part and modify the same directing the State Government to Constitute an Anomaly Committee to look into the grievance of the applicants and to take fresh decision after being given opportunity of being heard to them. We further direct that the State Government shall complete the exercise within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the rival claims of the parties on merit and the committee will be at liberty to take independent decision depending upon the factual aspects of the matter.