Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.R. Sarangi, G. Satapathy, JJ.
Laxmidhar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 13237 of 2017 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.)
Decided On : 30-08-2022
Salaried Amins - Government Resolution - 186-A, G.R. & C.O. (CIVIL) Vol.1, Justice Shetty Commission Report - The court discussed the creation of Salaried Amins posts, their scale of pay, and the recommendation for one advance increment. It highlighted the duties and responsibilities of Salaried Amins and their qualification compared to other posts. The court emphasized the principle of natural justice and the withdrawal of the benefit of one advance increment, ultimately quashing the orders and granting the increment to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Salaried Amin, sought to quash a government letter and order rejecting the representation for one advance increment. The case revolved around the withdrawal of the benefit of one advance increment recommended by the Justice Shetty Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the withdrawal of the one advance increment was unjustified and violated the principle of natural justice. It emphasized the duties and responsibilities of Salaried Amins, their qualifications, and the recommendation made by the High Court and the Justice Shetty Commission.
Issues: The main issue was whether the withdrawal of the one advance increment granted to the Salaried Amins was justified, and if not, what relief could be granted to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the withdrawal of the benefit without complying with the principle of natural justice was void. It emphasized the recommendation made by the High Court and the Justice Shetty Commission, and the duties and responsibilities of Salaried Amins.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders withdrawing the benefit of one advance increment and granted the increment to the petitioner, directing the release of his pensionary benefits within three months.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The Petitioner, who was working as Salaried Amin under the District Judge, Cuttack (re- engaged after superannuation), has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the letter no.4009 dated 12.05.2014, as at Annexure-6, by which the Government of Orissa in Law Department observed that the Salaried Amins and Drivers of Subordinate Judiciary are not entitled to get one increment in pursuance of Law Department Resolution No. 10077/L dated 13.09.2012. The petitioner also seeks to quash the order dated 26.05.2017 at Annexure-11 rejecting the representation filed by All Orissa Judicial Employees Association regarding giving benefit of one advance increment to the Salaried Amins working in the Subordinate Judiciary, and to hold that the petitioner is entitled to get one advance increment like other staff in the ministerial cadre of the Subordinate Judiciary and accordingly his pension/family pension is to be processed and released within a stipulated time. The petitioner also further prayed to direct the opposite parties not to recover the amount paid to him by grant of one advance increment.
2. The genesis of the case revolves around the fact that this High Court considering the necessity to appoint 'Salaried Amins' in place of 'Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioners', vide letter no.9938 dated 07.11.1973, clarified that the posts of 'Salaried Amin' with scale of pay Rs.125-190/-, shall be created under the Government, but those Salaried Amins will remain under the control of the District Judges. The qualification and other eligibility criteria for appointment were also indicated therein.
Consequentially, recommendation was made by this Court for creation of the posts of Salaried Amin with the scale of pay Rs.320-450/- which is equal to that of the Grade-II Assistants, keeping in view the recommendation of the 4th State Pay Commission in 1974. Such recommendation was made to the Government, vide letter no.5443, dated 16.07.1979, by indicating that the posts of Lower Division Assistant in the Subordinate Civil Court, for which the prescribed qualification is Matriculate, carry a scale of pay of Rs.255-360/- and, therefore, it will not be reasonable to prescribe a lower scale of pay for the post of Salaried Amin, for whom the prescribed qualification is higher than the post of Lower Division Assistant. Accordingly, the posts of Salaried Amin were created with scale of pay of Rs.320- 450/-, vide Government Letter No.2097/L dated 15.11.1980. The prescribed qualification for the post of Salaried Amin is passing of Matriculation and Revenue Inspectorship Examination with knowledge in Survey, while the prescribed qualification for the post of Revenue Inspectors in the Government was passing of Matriculation Examination only. Therefore, the scale of pay for the post of Revenue Inspector has relevancy in the context of scale of pay for the post of Salaried Amin. When the Government, vide Resolution No.10533 dated 02.03.2009, raised the scale of pay of the Revenue Inspectors to Rs.9,300-34,800/- with a grade pay of Rs.4,200/-, but did not increase the pay scale of the Salaried Amins notwithstanding the fact that prior to 02.03.2009, the Salaried Amins, who were enjoying higher scale of pay than that of the Revenue Inspectors, were equated with the un-equals, i.e., the Assistant Revenue Inspectors. The scale of pay of Rs.125-190/-, as was recommended by the High Court, was equivalent to that of the scale of pay of the Grade-II Revenue Supervisors, which is the next promotional post of the Revenue Inspectors. Thus, the Salaried Amins have been placed in the most disadvantageous position, due to non-consideration of the relevant aspects, as mentioned above.
2.1 The duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Salaried Amin have not been visualized in proper perspective. While there are 52 sanctioned posts of Salaried Amin in the State in different Judgeships, keeping in view that the cases in which their assistan
AI
The withdrawal of benefits without complying with the principle of natural justice is void, and the court emphasized the recommendation made by the High Court and the Justice Shetty Commission.
The court affirmed the principle of equal treatment under Article 14, ordering the extension of retroactive pay benefits to applicants similar to counterparts in other departments.
An employee need not wait for twelve months from the fixation of his/her pay in the new scale for earning in the revised scale.
Equal pay for equal work mandates uniform application of benefits across similarly situated employees, reinforcing that arbitrary denial of pay parity violates constitutional principles.
Tribunal upheld employees' entitlement to retrospective pay fixation from 1996, emphasizing equality under law for similarly situated individuals.
Court emphasizes equal treatment and fair pay for similarly situated employees under the law, allowing notional pay fixation from 1996.
Employees similarly situated must receive equitable treatment regarding pay fixation as per Article 14, emphasizing uniform application of benefits.
The tribunal affirmed that similar employees' pay should be upgraded equally, addressing violations of equality in pay scales and ensuring equitable treatment among all central government employees.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
