Order No.05

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Ms. S.S. Moharana, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging office order dtd.01.01.2018 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-2. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of the salary as applicable to the post of Driver was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though there is no dispute that Petitioner was appointed as a Peon, which is a Group-D post, but in course of his employment in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 2, he was allowed to drive the vehicle for the period from 13.05.1992 to 30.06.2018.

4.1. It is contended that since Petitioner in spite of his appointment as against a Group-D post, was allowed to drive the vehicle in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 2 for a period more than 24 years, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 74(b) of the Odisha Page 2 of 3. Service Code, he is entitled to get the benefit as due and admissible in terms of the said provision.

4.2. It is conte