JAGAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the petitioner Challenging the judgment and decree dated 7 -2 195 and l5 -2 -1?85 respectively in Money appeal No. 3 of 1982 reversing the judgment and decree dated 16 -11 -1982 and 23 - -10 -1982 respectively passed in Money Suit No. 13 of 1981, this Civil Revision has been filed.

(2.) IN the plaint, it has been averred that the plaintiff 'was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service in the year 1976 and was allotted to the Orissa Cadre. After completion of probation' period he was posted as SDO, Bhanjnagar on 22 -2 -1978 and thereafter posted as Charge Officer of Sambalpuf Majo. Settlement in which post he can inued till 25 -7 - 1980. these two posts, according to him carries a basic pay of Rs. 800/. The plaintiff -petitioner's pay is to be fixed under the provisions of 'the Indian 'Administrative Service (Pay)' Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). According to the petitioner, since his appointment was in accordance - with Rule 9(4) of the Rules, provisions of Rule 9 (6) of the Rules is We to him and therefore he is entitled to 'minimum basic scale of Rs. 850/ - as per the schedule appended to the plaint for the period he served as SDO and Charge Officer. It is submitted that the scale of pay prescribed for the above two posts as Rs. 85O - 80 -1150 -EB -60 -14450/ -. According to the plaintiff petitioner, he was entitled to at least the minimum salary of 'Rs. 850/ - which is prescribed for the post of SDO/Charge Officer. In spite of plaintiff's repeated demands to give his pay at the rate of Rs. 850/ - -, he was only 'paid at the rate of Rs. 780/ - with special pay attached to the post besides DA and ADA Averring such facts, plaintiff claims the differential pay which is prescribed for the post of SDO/Charge Officer which was being paid by the defendant -Stale Government to the plaintiff. The total money which is claimed under plaint 'is . Rs. 2,053 -10 as per the rate of calculation given in the schedule annexed to the plaint._

(3.) PLAINTIFF examined himeslf as PW 1. No witness was examined on the side of the defendant. Reliance was placed by both bides on AN India Administrative Service (Pay) -Rules, 1954.