JAGADANANDA PAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who was the Applicant before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 94 -B of 1998 assails the order of the Tribunal dated 21.3.2003 dismissing the said Original application.

(2.) THE case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as a Computer in the office of the R.T.O., Chhatrapur in the scale of pay of Rs. 320 -550/ - with usual D.A., A.D.A. apart from other allowances as admissible from time to time by order dated 28.4.1982. He was confirmed in the said post in the same scale of pay with effect from 30th April, 1982 as per order dated 28.12.1992. The opposite party No. 2 in terms of Rule 14 of the ORSP Rules, 1989 re -designated the post of Computer as Statistical Assistant in some Departments and revised the scale of pay from Rs. 1200 -2040/ - to Rs. 1400 -2300/ - with effect from 21.5.1992 vide resolution dated 21.5.1992. The grievance of the Petitioner is that his post was not included for re -designation as Statistical Assistant even though he was qualified and was performing the duty similar to his counter parts in other departments where the post of Computer had been re -designated as Statistical Assistant. He made a representation to opposite party No. 3 on 5.12.1995 for revision of scale of pay. The representation of the Petitioner was forwarded to opposite party No. 1, but no order having been passed thereon, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 104(B) of 1997. The said Original Application was disposed of on 4.8.1997 directing the opposite party No. 1 to dispose of the representation on the basis of recommendation made by opposite party No. 3. The representation was rejected and the Petitioner was intimated on 16.7.1998 about rejection of his representation. While rejecting the representation, opposite party No. 1 held that the Petitioner had been given higher scale of pay erroneously which was meant for the post of Computer in the office of the Transport Commissioner and, therefore, the question of re -designation of his post as Statistical Assistant or revision of scale of pay as claimed by him cannot be allowed. Opposite party No. 1 further directed for reduction of the scale of pay without any recovery of the amount already paid in excess due to the wrong fixation of pay. Challenging the order of opposite party No. 1, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal in the present Original Application. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment dismissed the Original Application for which the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the same.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the State submitted that though the requisition was sent by the Transport Commissioner and the order of appointment was also issued by the Transport Commissioner, the Petitioner had been appointed in the office of the R.T.O., Chhatrapur in the district of Ganjam against a sanctioned post which carries lesser scale of pay. According to the learned Counsel for the State, the post in which the Petitioner was working is a sanctioned post having a particular scale of pay and, therefore, the Petitioner could not have been paid a higher scale of pay while working in the said post. The opposite party No. 1 therefore rightly held that the Petitioner had been granted higher scale of pay erroneously which was required to be reduced.