Back
2014 Supreme(Ori) 540
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
B.R.SARANGI, J.
Sadananda Mishra - Petitioner
versus
Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. & Anr. - Opp.Parties
OJC No. 16221 of 1997
Decided On : 18.12.2014
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: M/s. A.K.Mishra, B.B.Acharya, J.Sengupta, D.K.Panda, P.R.J.Dash,C.Mohanty, & N.K.Rath.
For Opp.Parties: M/s.M.R.Mohanty, A.K.Panigrahi, D.P.Brahma & L.K.Behera
The main legal point established is that the court upheld the petitioner's entitlement to annual increments and medical leave as per the Rules, 1976, and interpreted Rule 26 to support the petitioner's claim.
Headnote:
Increment - Employment Dispute - Rules, 1976 Rule 26
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former employee, sought direction for annual increment, arrear financial benefits, conveyance allowance, and medical leave. The petitioner was denied annual increments and conveyance allowance, and his medical leave application was rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the annual increments and medical leave as per the Rules, 1976, and directed the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to cross the efficiency bar (EB) from an earlier date and grant the medical leave. However, the claim for conveyance allowance was not granted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of annual increments, conveyance allowance, and medical leave to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should have been allowed to cross the efficiency bar earlier, as per Rule 26 of the Rules, 1976, and should have been granted medical leave based on the available earned leave. However, the claim for conveyance allowance was rejected based on the circular dated 1.6.1996.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to cross the efficiency bar earlier and grant medical leave, but the claim for conveyance allowance was not granted.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.
The petitioner, who was working as Manager (C) under the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., in short, “Corporation”, has filed this application seeking a direction to allow him to get his annual increment with effect from 31.5.1995 and also to pay his arrear financial benefits retrospectively, pay the conveyance allowance as per the circular dated 1.6.1996 vide Annexure-5 and grant the medical leave for the period from 17.10.1996 to 9.11.1996.
2. The short facts of the case, in hand, are that the petitioner after passing his Diploma, joined as Sub-Asst. Engineer on 31.3.1965 and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 31.5.1990, which was re-designated as Manager (Civil) and retired from service with effect from 30.6.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation. While he was in service, he was not allowed to cross E.B. at the stage of Rs.2860/- in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.1500-3100/- with effect from 28.1.1990. The next annual increment was due on 28.1.1991. Subsequently, his pay was revised and the scale was changed to Rs.2100-75-2475-85-2900/-, which was paid on 28.01.1991. Subsequently, on promotion to the post of Manager (Civil), his pay was fixed at Rs.3600/- in the scale of pay of Rs.2900-4500/- w.e.f. 31.5.1990 and he was allowed to draw his annual increment of Rs.100/-in the scale of pay of Rs.2900-4500/- till 31.5.1993. But subsequently, another increment was paid with effect from 31.5.1994 raising his pay upto Rs.4,000/-. The next annual increment was due on 31.5.1995, but at the stage of Rs.4,000/- the petitioner was to cross his E.B. in order to receive increment of Rs.125/-, but the same was not sanctioned in his favour, consequently he was getting less pay them which he was entitled to normally. The petitioner would have been entitled to get three increments by 31.5.1997, i.e. on 31.5.1995, 31.5.1996 and 31.5.1997, as a result of which his scale would have been fixed at Rs.4375/-, whereas he was getting Rs.4100/-. Not allowing the petitioner to cross E.B. at the stage of Rs.4000/- in the scale of pay of Rs.2900-4500/- with effect from 31.5.1995, caused financial loss to him. The petitioner availed leave on medical ground from 17.10.1996 to 9.11.1996. Though he had got 184 days E.L. and 505 days half pay leave as on 30.9.1993 to his credit, he was only allowed 24 days E.L. on 29.11.1996 on medical ground.
3. As per the office order dated 1.6.1996, the Corporation had decided for reimbursement of conveyance allowance for various categories of employees with effect from 1.4.1996 in respect of the vehicle owned and used by them in the interest of the Corporation. The petitioner having purchased a car on availing loan from the Corporation, he was entitled to get conveyance allowance of Rs.400/- per month as per Circular dated 1.6.1996. Though the same was sanctioned and paid to the officers, who were similarly placed, but the petitioner was denied the said benefit and against such refusal, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 2.6.1997, but he was intimated by letter dated 3.7.1997 that he was allotted with a Corporation jeep on full time basis which he was utilizing to attend office and local duties and if he wanted conveyance allowance he should surrender the jeep and use his own vehicle for attending the work as per the Corporation Rules entitling him the conveyance allowance as claimed. Hence, this application.
4. Mr.G.Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.A.K.Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the action of the opposite parties is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory one and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
5. Mr.A.K.Panigrahi, learned counsel for the opposite parties, states that the petitioner was not allowed to cross E.B. because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding against him. So far as grant of leave is concerned, it is urged that the petitioner did not fulfill the crit
