JUDGMENT

B. P. DAS, J. The writ petitioner, a retired Judge of this High Court, was appointed as the Lokpal under Section 3 of the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995 (Orissa Act 8 of 1995) and he assumed the said office on 16.2.1997. He has been constrained to approach this Court for redressal of his grievance. The peti¬tioner in this writ petition prays to quash the letter dated 12.2.2001 issued by the State Government in Public Grievance & Pension Administration Department, vide Annexure-5, wherein it was clarified that the relief extended to Justice S. K. Ray, ex Lokpal, pursuant to the decision of this Court in O.J.C.No. 10896 of 1998 (reported in 90 (2000) CLT 362 : Justice S.K.Ray v. State of Orissa, cannot be made available to the petitioner since his case is not similarly situated with that of Justice S.K.Ray, ex Lokpal. The claim of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the enhanced salary and allowances as admissible to the Chief Justice of the High Court.

2. The Lokpal is appointed under the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the Act, which are relevant for the present purpose, read as under :

“(4) There shall be paid to the Lokpal and the Lokayuk¬tas such salaries as are specified in the Second Schedule.

(5) The allowances and other conditions of service of the Lokpal or a Lokayukta shall be such as may be prescribed :

Provided that -

(a) In prescribing the allowance and other conditions of service of the Lokpal, regard shall be had to the allowances and other conditions of service of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa;

(b) in prescribing the allowances and other conditions of service of the Lokayuktas regard shall be had to the allowances and other conditions of service of a Judge of the High Court of Orissa;

Provided further that the allowance and other conditions of service of the Lokpal or Lokayukta shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.”

3. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holding the office of the Lokpal from 16.2.1997 till 15.2.2002 and though the salaries of the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court were enhanced with effect from 1.1.1996 to Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 26,000/- respective¬ly, the benefit of such enhancement has not been extended to the petitioner even if he has approached the State Government in this regard during his tenure.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by O.Ps. 1 to 5. In paragraph 14 of the counter it is stated :

“14. That in respect of the submission made in para-9 of the writ application, it is submitted that the interpretation of Sub-section 5(a) of Section 5 intimating that the allowance and other condition of service of Lokpal shall be at par with the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court is not correct. The provisions specifically indicates that while prescribing the allowance and other conditions of service of the Lokpal regard shall be had to be allowance and other conditions of service of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, and it is not controverted by the opposite parties, that in the meantime the salary of the Lokpal has already been revised and the benefit of such revision, which has been claimed by the petitioner, has been extended to his successor with effect from 29th August, 2003. Annexure-7 to the additional affidavit filed by the peti¬tioner confirms the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though a decision was taken by the Government in Lokpal File No. 15/1998 regarding revision of salary of the petitioner, due to change in the Government, the same was not implemented, but such benefit was however given to his successor. According to the petitioner, the action of the State Government in not extending the benefit of revised salary to the petitioner, which has been done subsequently by bringing an amendment to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act