SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARITY of benefits of pay scales and other emoluments between the members of the ministerial staff in the Police Department of Orissa working as Lower Division Clerks in the offices of the Superintendent of Police and other District Offices with that of the ministerial staff working in the offices of DIG, IG or DGP at the headquarters, has been the core issue for which litigation persists for more than three decades. The matter in issue had a chequered career and has had to travel more than once before this Court, but the finality is yet to be reached and parties are yet to get justice in accordance with law in our justice delivery system. Judicial process is slow and delay in disposal of matters in this sub-continent is not unknown but that, however, does not warrant protracted litigation to be continued more than three decades - unfortunately, the facts presently under consideration depict such a protraction and the delayed process of our justice delivery system. Before we proceed further, we are emboldened to put on record our displeasure as to the method and manner in which this particular litigation proceeded even before this Court. Blames we do not want to attribute but the fact remains judicial process has seen probably at its saddest and poorest exposure in this matter as regards the time period. Faith, belief and confidence of the people cannot but be termed to be the hallmark of our justice delivery system and if matters like this proceed, there would neither be faith or belief nor confidence in the judiciary - a state of affairs which cannot but imply a total failure and breakdown of the entire constitutional system of the country since judiciary, the third pillar of the Constitution, stands out to be the guardian-angel of the society. It is not that this Court has not been able to deal with the matters like the present one but it so happened that the judicial process has taken its own time and thus the toll. In a progressive society judiciary must be active and should be able to dispense with the justice delivery system in quickest possible period of time - this is not the requirement presently, but has been the well-recognised principle since the advent of judicial process in the society. On this score, in fine we wish to mention that both the Bench and the Bar alike owe a duty to the people of the country to make available the justice delivery system with utmost promptitude and our conjoint efforts only would be able to bring forth a change.

(2.) ADVERTING to the matter under consideration be it noticed that as against the order dated 11/07/1988 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in T.A. No. 819 of 1987 (OJC 1215/84) this Court upon a detailed hearing disposed of the appeal being Civil Appeal No. 2091 of 1990 in the manner following:

(3.) IT is in the context as above that this Court finally in its order dated 28/11/1995 recorded the following: