LAXMIDHAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who was working as Salaried Amin under the District Judge, Cuttack (re- engaged after superannuation), has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the letter no.4009 dtd. 12/5/2014, as at Annexure-6, by which the Government of Orissa in Law Department observed that the Salaried Amins and Drivers of Subordinate Judiciary are not entitled to get one increment in pursuance of Law Department Resolution No. 10077/L dtd. 13/9/2012. The petitioner also seeks to quash the order dtd. 26/5/2017 at Annexure-11 rejecting the representation filed by All Orissa Judicial Employees Association regarding giving benefit of one advance increment to the Salaried Amins working in the Subordinate Judiciary, and to hold that the petitioner is entitled to get one advance increment like other staff in the ministerial cadre of the Subordinate Judiciary and accordingly his pension/family pension is to be processed and released within a stipulated time. The petitioner also further prayed to direct the opposite parties not to recover the amount paid to him by grant of one advance increment.

(2.) The genesis of the case revolves around the fact that this High Court considering the necessity to appoint 'Salaried Amins' in place of 'Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioners', vide letter no.9938 dtd. 7/11/1973, clarified that the posts of 'Salaried Amin' with scale of pay Rs.125.00190/-, shall be created under the Government, but those Salaried Amins will remain under the control of the District Judges. The qualification and other eligibility criteria for appointment were also indicated therein.

(3.) Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the benefit, which has been admissible to the petitioner, pursuant to the recommendation made by Justice Shetty Commission, having been extended with effect from 1/4/2003, the same should not have been withdrawn, without application of mind, by holding that the Salaried Amins are not entitled to the said increment. Such withdrawal of benefit is arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to the Provisions of Law and violates the principle of natural justice. It is further contended that as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Clause-6 of the order of the High Court dtd. 28/1/1981, the Salaried Amins are also discharging other clerical works and duties, when are not occupied with the functions of the Court Commissioner. More so, they are discharging the higher responsibility, as a consequence thereof their scale of pay had been fixed at Rs.125.00190/-, as recommended by the High Court, which was equivalent to that of the scale of pay of the Grade-II Revenue Supervisors, which is the next promotional post of the Revenue Inspectors. Therefore, the 'Salaried Amins' stood in higher pedestal than that of the Revenue Supervisor and, as such, they were getting the scale of pay of Grade-II Revenue Supervisor, which is the promotional post of Revenue Inspector. It is further contended that once the benefit of one increment has been allowed with effect from 1/4/2003, surreptitiously, the said benefit cannot and could not have been withdrawn on a plea without germen to the issue in question and without considering the nature of work discharged by this category of employees. It is further contended that once the recommendation has been made by the High Court, the same should not have been considered lightly and, as such, the benefit should have been extended to the petitioner without creating any hindrance, and that he is entitled to get one increment as per the recommendation made by Justice Shetty Commission, as the increment recommended by the 1st National Judicial Pay Commission, which has been implemented by the Government vide Resolution dtd. 13/9/2012, in that case, the Government has no right to recover the amount already sanctioned and disbursed to the Salaried Amins.