BIJAYA KUMAR BEURA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the sole petitioner assails the final order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.913/1998 on 10.05.2007 rejecting his prayer by the opposite parties to grant him scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300/- as that of Accountant of the District Sports office. The petitioner had earlier approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2334/1997, which has been disposed of with certain observations and direction to the opposite parties to consider his case. The observations made therein have been relied on by the petitioner-applicant for grant of the relief he has prayed for in the O.A. in question.

(2.) The applicant joined Government service as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist in the Tourism Information Bureau, Konark on 07.06.1973. In due course, he was promoted to the post of Accountant and posted to the District Tourist office at Sambalpur on 23.03.1979. At the time of filing of the original application before the Tribunal, he was working as Accountant in the Department of Tourism, Sports and Culture. The Department of Tourism was a part and parcel of the erst-while Home (P.R.) Department till 23.11.1973. At that time, the Department of Cultural Affairs was created and the Department was reorganized and renamed as the Department of Tourism, Sports and Culture w.e.f. 10.06.1980. A separate department of Tourism was created w.e.f. 02.01.1991. Again the Department was reconstituted as Department of Tourism and Culture w.e.f. 30.12.1995. These different organizations, namely, Tourism, Sports and Culture were under the administrative control of separate Directors, but all of them function under one Secretary. Each organization had district offices for which some separate staff has been sanctioned. Initially, the Ministerial Officers of the District Tourist office constituted one Accountant, and one Junior Clerk-cum-Typist. The District office was in-charge of Tourist Officer, who besides being head of the office is also drawing and disbursing officer. The district office relating to culture and sports organization do not have ministerial staff and the most of ministerial staff required for those offices are being provided by the respective Collectors.

(3.) The opposite parties-respondents appeared in the case and filed counter affidavit. They claim that the responsibility assigned to the Accountant of the Tourist office is considered less than those assigned to the Accountants in the District Sports office. As a result of which, there is a difference in the scale of pay. The claim of the applicant to get equal scale of pay with the Accountant or his designation should be revised to that of the Accountant was of no merit. Their further case is that in the matter of determination of scale of pay against any particular post, the Finance Department is the appropriate authority to have the right of final view, irrespective of the views taken by the Administrative Department. The opposite parties though admit that the Administrative Department forwarded the representation of the applicant to the Finance Department, ultimate view taken by the Finance Department will have overriding the effect on the view of the Administrative Department. Hence, the opposite parties averred that the application of the applicant was rejected on the view of Finance Department and the allegation of non-application of mind is incorrect. Hence, they prayed that the O.A. may be dismissed.