KANDURI CHARAN PARIDA Vs. REGISTRAR JUDL HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an erstwhile employee of the Orissa High Court establishment. He has filed the present Writ Application challenging the legality of the Order dated 5.4.2002 (Annexure 6) rejecting the representation filed by him regarding fixation of his pay admissible to the post of Addl. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt.) of the Court. He has also sought for issuance of a direction to the opp. parties to compute the pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits as per the admissible Rules taking the last pay drawn, i.e., the pay admissible to Addl. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt).

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner after rendering about 37 years of service, he was promoted to the post of Addl. Stamp Reporter cum Oath Commissioner by Order dated 4.8.2001. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Addl. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt.) on 1.1.2002 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation while holding the said post with effect from 31.1.2002. According to the petitioner he is entitled to the scale of pay admissible to the post of Addl. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt.) and he is also entitled to computation of his pension on the basis of the last pay drawn by him. After retiring from service, as the opp. parties neither fixed his pay as admissible to the post of Addl. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt.) nor computed his pension in consonance with the relevant Rules, he filed a representation on 4.3.2002 praying for suitable fixation of his pay. The representation, as stated above, was rejected by the Order dated 5.4.2002 (Annexure 6) and the said action of the opp. parties is assailed in this Writ Petition.

(3.) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the stand taken in the Writ Petition. It is specifically averred that in past several employees being S/Shri C. R. Parida, P. Swain, A. C. Baral and S. K. Mohanty who were permitted to officiate in the higher post against leave vacancies before retirement on the basis of similar orders were permitted to draw the scale of pay admissible to the post held by them and their pensionary benefits were also calculated in consonance with the last pay drawn. According to the petitioner not extending the selfsame benefit to him amounts to gross discrimination and violates the principle of natural justice and equity.