Point of Law: In the matters of this kind the approach is not go entirely on the issue of the lapses and delay but to examine the merits. It is with that approach that this Court has required the Opposite Parties to file affidavits to explain their actions. While the legal position as explained by the decisions relied upon by the Petitioners cannot be disputed, equally there is nothing to show that this Court slipped up on promptly informing the Petitioners and other employees of the changes in the Rules and about time limit for the exercise of the option or change of the option so exercised.

JUDGMENT :

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. The challenges in this writ petition are to three orders issued by this Court on the administrative side. The first is the order dated 27th March, 2017 issued by the Assistant Registrar (Administration) rejecting the application of four peons namely, Krushna Chandra Bahira (Petitioner No. 6), Gagan Bihari Sahoo (Petitioner No. 7), Mahendra Singh (Petitioner No. 11) and Basanta Kumar Pradhan (Petitioner No. 25) stating that the anomaly in their pay vis-a-vis their juniors caused by virtue of the exercise of option in fixation of pay and consequential grant of the Revised Assured Career Progression (RACP) scheme could not be rectified by stepping up of pay or antedating the increments in terms of the resolution dated 6th February, 2013 of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha.

2. The second decision challenged is one dated 23rd July, 2018 of the Under Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Odisha informing the Assistant Registrar (Administration) that in terms of Rule 13 (xi) of the Odisha Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2017 (ORSP Rules) there shall be no stepping up of pay/antedation of increments between the seniors and juniors employees after regulation of pay by Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme. Further, relaxation of such provision under Rule 16 of the ORSP Rules, 2017 was also not possible as it was not a case of Public Interest. Consequently, the original service books of all of the above Petitioners along with others Co-Petitioners in this petition were returned.

3. The third decision to be challenged is dated 6th September, 2018 of the Assistant Registrar (Administration) which is a consequential order informing the Petitioners of the aforementioned decision dated 23rd July, 2018 of the Home Department.

4. The background facts are that the present Petitioners are Group- D employees of this Court and claim to be the senior-most in their respective cadres. Many of them joined in the 1980's and progressively earned promotions. Admittedly, all of them received revision of pay in terms of the ORSP Rules. However, it was noticed that when ORSP Rules, 1998 came into force there were discrepancies in the pay fixation inasmuch as some of them received lesser pay than their juniors. Referring to the circulars dated 1st January, 1992 and 17th February, 1992 of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha they pointed out that in terms of these circulars it had been clarified that in the event a junior gets more pay than a senior, then the pay of the senior is to be stepped up in concurrence with the Finance Department.

5. It is claimed that the Group-D employees were less informed about the provisions of law and the service and financial benefits available to them thereunder. They were working in separate locations and were not informed of the periodic changes introduced in the ORSP Rules. They acknowledge that when the ORSP Rules, 1998 came into force with effect from 1st January, 1996 there was a provision for the employees to exercise an option to come over to the revised scale. Such change of option had to be given within three months of publication of the Rules, failing which it can be deemed that the concerned employees had opted for the revised pay from that date. There was a Finance Department resolution dated 22nd September, 1999 clarifying that in exceptional cases the benefit of change of option may be still allowed. The Petitioners claim that they did not anticipate that by coming over to the revised scale under the ORSP Rules 1998, they would lose one increment and consequential fixation of pay under Rule 75 (b) of the Odisha Service Code (OSC). They claim that as a result, with effect from 1st January, 1996, they sustained a substantial loss in their salary and the anomaly of their juniors getting higher pay commenced. This was perpetuated in further