(1) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the order dated 1 1/7/1988 made by the orissa Administrative tribunal, Bhubaneswar in TA No. 819 of 1987 (OJC No. 1215 of 1984. The appellants are members of ministerial staff in the Police Department of orissa working as Lower Division Clerks in the offices of the Superintendent of Police and other district offices. They claimed parity of pay scales and other benefits with the ministerial staff working in the offices of DIG, IG or DGP at the headquarters. The relief was denied by the tribunal on the ground that they constitute separate cadre and, therefore, the ministerial staff working in the district headquarters could not be considered to be on a par with the staff working in the offices of DIG, IG or DGP, as the case may be. When the matter came up for consideration before this court, after hearing the counsel at length, by order dated 7/9/1994 this court directed as under:

"SHRI Santosh Hegde, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, relying upon the resolution of the government of orissa, dated 7/9/1974, in particular paragraphs 2 and 4 thereof, contended that all the police ministerial officers were treated as a whole unit, though they had earlier formed part of separate cadres and were given the benefits of special pay, rent free accommodation, house rent allowance although as a common cadre, incidentally all the benefits of the common cadre also stood extended. In support thereof, he sought to place reliance on the orders of transfer and postings effected in the Office Order No. 617-Administration, dated 4/5/19811 in which certain staff were inter-transferred from DPO Office to DIG SR etc.

IT is contended for the State that though the said method was adopted only for the purpose of disciplinary control, for the purpose of recruitment, appointment and control the police ministerial staff are controlled by Section 7 of the Police Act, 1862 and the orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Clerks and Assistants in the District Offices and Offices of the Heads of Departments) Rules, 1963 would continue to operate. In consequence, the ministerial staff appointed in the district offices are different from the ministerial staff working in the heads of the departments and that, therefore, the same benefits or the scale of pay etc. were not extended to the staff working in the district offices. Section 7 of the Act speaks of the appointment etc. are (sic) subject to Article 311 of the Constitution and the rules made under the Act or any other rules made in that behalf from time to time. When we asked the counsel for the State to point out to us whether any separate rules under Section 7 were made or any resolution in exercise of the powers under Section 7 was passed by the State adopting 1963 Rules as a part, for the purpose of appointment and administrative control of the ministerial staff working in the district offices as well as in the offices of the heads of the departments in the Police Department, it was said that since this question was not canvassed nor argued in the tribunal, they did not have an occasion to look into the matter and place the necessary material before this court. Since this is the crucial question that arises for decision in this case, the material is necessary. Counsel seeks for and is granted four weeks time to place the necessary material on record."

(2) THEREAFTER, the government has placed before us the statutory rules issued under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, viz., the orissa District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995 (for short, "the Rules") which came into force w.e.f. 24/2/1995. These Rules made a demarcation between the ministerial staff working in the district offices and those working in the offices of DIG, IG and DGP. The method of recruitment and the nature of the conditions of service have been enumerated there