Employees on deputation remain Government servants for pay benefits; the State is liable for their dues under Revised Pay Rules despite their employment under the Corporation.

ORDER :

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Since the issue in the present batch of Writ Petition is with regard to entitlements of the Petitioners to get the benefit of Pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006 under ORSP Rules, 2008, so rejected by the Government vide different orders and impugned in the present batch of Writ Petitions, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

4. It is contended that all the Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions while continuing under the erstwhile State Transport Service (STS) were deputed to Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (in short “Corporation”) at different point of time. However, even while continuing on such deputation, Petitioners were extended with all the benefits as due and admissible as a Government employee.

4.1. It is also contended that earlier when benefit of ORSP Rules, 1996 was not extended w.e.f 01.01.1996 and the Corporation took a decision to extend the same from a subsequent date, pursuant to the order passed by this Court and during pendency of the Writ Appeal, Government suo moto extended the benefit of ORSP Rules, 1998 w.e.f 01.01.1996 in favour of the present Petitioners. But instead of extending the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f 01.01.2006, when the Corporation decided to extend the benefit w.e.f 01.06.2012, Petitioners claiming the benefit w.e.f 01.01.2006 moved the authority to extend the same w.e.f 01.01.2006, in place of 01.04.2012. However, on the ground that the Petitioners are employees working under the Corporation and accordingly the State is not liable to pay the benefit, claim of the Petitioners was rejected vide different orders passed by Opp. Party No.1., so impugned in the present batch of Writ Petitions.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that the issue as to whether the Petitioners are Government employees or not has been set at rest in terms of the order passed by this Court in OJC No.8217 of 1999, so followed in Order dt.23.12.2010 in W.P.(C) No.9579 of 2009. Relevant portion of order dt. 23.12.2010 reads as follows:

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, we find that the question as to whether the petitioner continued to be a Government servant even after deputation to O.S.R.T.C. till he attained the age of superannuation has been set at rest by this Court in O.J.CNo.8217 of 1999. Even though the petitioner while working under O.S.R.T.C. on deputation retired on superannuation, the Court specifically held that he continued to be a Government servant while working on deputation till he attained the age superannuation under O.S.R.T.C. This judgment having not been challenged either by O.S.R.T.C. or by the State has attained finality and this question cannot be reopened again. The question as to whether who is liable to pay the dues of the petitioner need no further argument in view of the finding of this Court in the said writ application. If the petitioner continued to be a Government servant till his superannuation while on deputation to O.S.R.T.C. it is the Government, which has to bear all the dues of the petitioner and not O.S.R.T.C. Therefore, the Tribunal, while dropping the contempt proceeding was not justified in holding that the State Government is not liable to pay the dues of the petitioner for the period during which he worked under O.S.R.T.C: on deputation. The notification dated 17.4.2003 cannot have retrospective effect and the judgment of this Court as well as the Tribunal having been passed much prior to the said notification, it is the State and State alone which has to comply with the directions of this Court as well as the Tribunal passed in the aforesaid three, Origi