BRAJA SUNDAR PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are employees of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, were initially appointed as N.M.R. against the vacant sanctioned posts. They had, after working as such for a quite long period, approached this Court in OJC Nos. 1036 and 5851 of 1992 claiming for regularization and in compliance of the order passed by this Court their services have been regularized and they are continuing in service till date. As per the policy of the State Government, the Orissa Revised Scale of Pay admissible to the State Government employees is also extended to the employees of the urban local bodies. Accordingly, the benefit of revised scale of pay pursuant to Fourth Pay Commission Report was extended to the petitioners at par with their counterparts in the State Government. When Fifth Pay Commission Report came, pursuant to the same, the benefit of Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 was extended to the State Government employees, but the same was not immediately extended to the petitioners. However, subsequently pursuant to resolution passed on 13.10.2006, the benefit of Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 was extended to the employees of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 notionally and the actual financial benefit was extended w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The claim of the petitioners is that the benefit of Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 should have been extended w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Therefore, they have approached this Court challenging the resolution dated 13.10.2006 for extension of actual financial benefit w.e.f. 01.01.1996 instead of 01.01.2006.

(2.) Mr. K. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no valid and justified reasons to extend the actual financial benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead of 01.01.1996 as per the Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998. It is further contended that the resolution dated 13.10.2006 was under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 15359, 15360 and 15361 of 2008 and this Court vide order dated 06.04.2012 quashed the said resolution dated 13.10.2006 and directed the opposite parties to compute the financial benefits and pay the same to the petitioners therein within three months. The petitioners herein having stood at par with the petitioners in the disposed of writ petitions, the benefit should be extended to them in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 06.04.201

(3.) Mr. K.P. Nanda, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.3 and 5 contended that in view of the counter affidavit filed on 26.10.2009, the benefit as claimed in the writ petition to quash the resolution dated 110.2006 is not admissible. It is further contended that the reliance placed on the order dated 06.04.2012 passed in W.P.(C) Nos. 15359, 15360 and 15361 of 2008 has come after filing of the counter affidavit by the opposite parties. Therefore, since this Court has already quashed the resolution dated 110.2006 vide order dated 06.04.2012, the case of the petitioners would be examined by the authority in the light of the said order.