JUDGMENT :

Dr. D.P.Choudhury, J.

These writ petitions have been filed assailing the inaction of the opposite parties for non-payment of differential arrear salary under Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 (hereinafter called as “the ORSP Rules, 1998”) to the petitioners.

2. Since the above five writ petitions have got common question of law, they are being taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

FACTS

3. The adumbrated facts of the petitioners are that the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.20784, 19927, 20291, 20092 of 2014 and petitioner no.2 in W.P.(C) No.20162 of 2014, were employees of Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (in short “the Corporation”). Petitioner No.1 in W.P.(C) No.20162 of 2014 is the General Secretary of Employees’ Association of the Corporation and it has prayed for a direction to implement the Resolution of the Finance Department dated 17.04.1998 from the effective date by the Corporation in respect of its employees.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20784 of 2014 was an employee of the Corporation and retired from service with effect from 31.07.1999 after having started his service career as a Lower Division Clerk on 29.08.1964 and subsequently promoted to different posts before superannuation under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter called as “VRS”). Be it stated that the Corporation is a Statutory Corporation and the employees are regulated under the provisions of Orissa State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Recruitment and Condition of Service) Regulation, 1978 (hereinafter called as “the Regulation, 1978”) which was framed under Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (in short “the Act, 1950”).

5. The scale of pay prescribed by the State Government for different cadre of different posts are followed by the Corporation for its employees. So, the ORSP Rules, 1998 was also implemented for which the scale of pay of the petitioner was also revised at Rs.4500/- per month as per order dated 01.03.2004 with effect from 01.01.1996. Since the annual increment was also made available to the petitioner, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.4875/- at the time of his superannuation. The petitioner took voluntary retirement because of his health condition. Be it stated that although the pay of the petitioner was revised under ORSP Rules, 1998 and his pay was fixed as per the said Rule at the time of his retirement, the arrear salary from 01.01.1996 till his retirement was not made available to him for which he filed a writ petition before this Court, i.e., W.P.(C) No.7982 of 2008 and after hearing the parties, this Court, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, disposed of the said writ petition on 29.07.2008 directing the opposite party no.1 therein to dispose of the representation said to have been filed by the petitioner before the opposite party. The petitioner made representation in accordance with the order of this Court but the opposite party rejected the same by observing that the payment of the petitioner was being made as per ORSP Rule, 1989 and the Board of the Corporation has not adopted the ORSP Rule, 1998 by then resulting rejection of the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner assails such rejection on the ground that the pay of the petitioner has been fixed as per ORSP Rule, 1998 but not ORSP Rule, 1989 and the ground of rejection of the petitioner was not correct factually. Be it stated that the Corporation adopted and accepted the ORSP Rule, 1998 prospectively from 16.02.2009. So, the petitioner filed another writ petition before this Court, i.e., W.P.(C) No.10578 of 2010 and this Court, vide order dated 29.7.2013, again directed the opposite parties 2 and 4 therein to pay the differential arrear dues of the petitioner as per the Office Order dated 12.04.2004, as expeditiously as possible, prefe