The main legal point established in the judgment is that a senior government servant cannot be paid less than his junior, and his pay has to be stepped up with reference to the higher pay of the junior, as per the Finance Department Resolution dated 03.05.1985 and the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The legality and propriety of the order dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar dismissing the O.A. No. 625 of 1998, which was filed by the petitioner seeking stepping up of his pay at par with his junior, is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

2. The petitioner, while serving as Under Secretary in Orissa Administrative Service (OAS) Class-I (Jr.), approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal seeking stepping of up of his pay at par with his junior- Ananta Charan Mohanty, who was also serving as OAS Class-I (Jr.). The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he joined as a Lower Division Assistant in Revenue and Excise Department on 30.07.1964, whereas his junior Ananta Charan Mohanty joined as Junior Typist on 08.04.1959. Subsequently, both of them were brought over to the Gr.I Assistant Cadre in Revenue and Exercise Department during the period from 28.04.1966 to 30.06.1976. The petitioner was inducted to OAS Class-II cadre, from the cadre of Gr.I Assistant, on 09.07.1979, and promoted to OAS Class-I (Jr) with effect from 15.09.1994, whereas Shri Mohanty was inducted from the cadre of Legal Assistant to OAS Class-II cadre, on 20.06.1980, and promoted to OAS Class-I (Jr) with effect from 29.11.1994. Even though Shri Mohanty was junior to the petitioner both in OAS Class-II and OAS Class-I (Jr) cadres, but was getting higher scale of pay than the petitioner. A comparative chart showing placement of the petitioner and Shri Mohanty in OAS Class-II and OAS Class-I (Jr) cadres and the basic salary granted to them at the entry level in both the ranks is given below:-

A. Name Placing in the Civil Test O.A.S, Class-II O.A.S, Class -I P.C.Mohapatra 327 494 A.C.Mohanty 329 496 B. Name Basic pay and scale of pay at Entry level.

Class II Class - I P.C.Mohapatra Scale Rs.525-1150/- Rs.2200-4000/- Basic Rs.575/- Basic Rs. 3000/- A.C.Mohanty Basic Rs.730/- Basic Rs. 3400/-'

2.1 The petitioner, having come to know that his junior is getting higher scale of pay than him, represented to the Government to step up his pay to the level of his junior. Since the State opposite parties sat over the matter, the petitioner consequentially moved the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 625 of 1998 with the following prayer:-

'(i) declare that the 4th condition in the resolution of the Govt. in Finance Dept. dt 3rd may, 1995 that the junior officer was not drawing a higher rate of pay than the senior in the low part as ultravires and violative of Article-14 and 16(i) , 39(d) of the constitution vide annexure -3;

(ii) direct the respondent no.1 to consider the claim of the applicant and allow him the benefit of step-up pay and differential pay than that of his junior from the date his junior was given higher pay.

(iii) Declare that the applicant is entitled to get the same pay as that of his junior shri Ananta Charan Mohanty from the date of entry into the O.A.S. Cadre-II

(iv) pass any other order (s) in favour of the applicant and in the interest of justice.'

2.2 Opposite party No.1 filed counter affidavit before the tribunal contending that the petitioner was not entitled to get the relief sought by him. Basically, it was pleaded so on the ground that the petitioner's pay was lesser than that of Shri Mohanty before they were taken into the OAS cadre. More specifically, at paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit it was stated as follows:-

'4 That in reply to paragraph-6.3 of the original application, it is humbly submitted that it is not a fact that the applicant's pay should have been regulated at a higher scale vis-a-vis his junior in the cadre as has been averred to.

That applicant's case of stepping up of his pay in par with that of his junior is strictly to be examined in accordance with the instruction as well as conditions as stipulated in Finance Department Resolution No. 19168-F dt.3.5.1985 (Annexure -3) of the original application. The ap