JUDGMENT :

Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J.

1. Challenge has been made to the Government order dated 30.12.2014 and the consequential order of the office of the High Court of Orissa dated 11.2.2015 for not allowing the petitioners to avail honorarium.

FACTS

2. The factual matrix leading to this writ petition is that the petitioners are the drivers appointed in the High Court of Orissa (hereinafter called “the Court”). The State Government vide D.O. Letter No.2828 dated 16.2.1949 purportedly made revision of scale of pay of the staff of the Court at par with the employees of the corresponding ranks and cadres in the State Secretariat. Since the benefit under such letter was not extended after revision of scale of pay of the employees of the State, batch of writ petitions have been filed by the employees of the Court and time to time under different writ applications this Court allowed the prayer of the employees of the Court for equal treatment and equal scale of pay as available to their counterparts in the Orissa Secretariat.

3. Be it stated that out of 37 drivers, 8 posts are of Senior Drivers and 29 posts are of Drivers under the cadre of Drivers in the establishment of the Court and they have been continuing against the substantive posts on regular basis. It is alleged, inter alia, that Drivers of the Orissa Secretariat have been extended the benefits of Special Pay in lieu of their service during holidays and for their service beyond working hours. But same benefit was not extended to the Drivers of the Court by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. So, on the request of the Drivers of the Court Hon’ble the Chief Justice recommended vide letter No.9401 dated 13.12.2010 to grant honorarium in favour of the Drivers including the petitioners vide Annexure-3. Despite the recommendation, the State Government did not take any action. So, all the Drivers including the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.8881 of 2013 before the Court to sanction honorarium in their favour as per the recommendation of the Court along with creation of some promotional posts.

4. It is stated that this Court on 27.11.2013 passed the following order:

“04. 27.11.2013

Heard Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.

2. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State is permitted to correct the spelling mistake occurred in the counter affidavit in Court today.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have made two prayers. Prayer No.(i) is to direct the opposite parties to take steps for the creations of two promotional posts of Senior Driver and Garage Supervisor, vis-à-vis in so far as prayer no.(ii) is concerned, the claim of the petitioners are to sanction honorarium to the Drivers of the Orissa High Court as per the recommendation dated 13.12.2010 under Annexure-5.

4. In the counter affidavit of opposite party no.2- Registrar (Judicial) at paragraph-7 at page-5, the Special Officer (Special Cell), Orissa High Court, Cuttack has noted that the High Court has not received any reply from the Home Department in response to the Court’s letter No.9401 dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure-5). Therefore, Mr. Sahoo learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State is directed to obtain instruction from the Home Department and file counter affidavit with regard to the aforesaid reliefs sought for. The said affidavit be filed within three weeks.

5. List this matter four weeks after.

A copy of this order be handed over to the learned Additional Standing Counsel.”

Be it stated that in pursuance of the aforesaid direction the State Government allowed honorarium vide letter dated 30.12.2014 only in favour of the Drivers attached to the Hon’ble Chief Justice, Judges and Protocol duty vide Annexure-4. Basing on the letter of the State Government, opposite party No.3 issued letter dated 11.2.2015 which is allegedly unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioners alleg