The Supreme Court has the power to review its own orders and judgments in appropriate cases, especially when relevant rules and statutory provisions were not considered in the original decision.

ORDER

1. This review petition is moved by six applicants who belong to the ministerial staff attached to the Offices of the Director General, Inspector General and Deputy Inspector General of Police forming part of the police force of State of Orissa. They have felt aggrieved by the decision rendered in Sisir Kumar Mohanty v. State of Orissa ((1996) 7 SCC 120 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 754 : (1996) 32 ATC 791) by a Bench of two Judges of this Court to which one of us (S. B. Majmudar, J.) was a party. The said decision is reported in Sisir ((1996) 7 SCC 120 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 754 : (1996) 32 ATC 791). By the said decision it was held by this Court that the four appellants before this Court in the said civil appeal who were members of the ministerial staff in the Police Department of State of Orissa working as Lower Division Clerks in the Offices of the Superintendent of Police and other district-level offices, had to be treated as members of one and the same unified cadre of ministerial staff of the Police Department in the State. The review petitioners, who were not parties to the said appeal, submitted before us in support of the review petition that the aforesaid decision of this Court has adversely affected them and hence the order passed by this Court without hearing them being necessary parties was liable to be reviewed. While entertaining these review proceedings by an order dated 13-1-1998 we made it clear as under :

"It is also made clear that these proceedings will survive only on the question whether the order of this Court could have proceeded on the basis that there was fusion of two cadres. The question of equal pay for equal work does not survive for consideration as fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the applicants.

These review petitions will be placed for final disposal on a non-miscellaneous day after six weeks. In the meantime, the operation of the order under review will remain stayed to the limited extent of fusion of cadres. There will be no stay of the operation of the order so far as it results in granting benefit of equal pay for equal work or any other monetary benefit pursuant to the said order."

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, therefore, these review proceedings now survive on the question whether as per the order sought to be reviewed the ministerial staff working in the police force of the State of Orissa, whether at headquarters or in the districts, could be treated to be forming part and parcel of one single cadre or whether there were two separate cadres and there was no fusion of the two cadres pursuant to any order legally passed by the State of Orissa. So far as the question of equal pay for equal work made available to the original four appellants before this Court by the impugned order is concerned, the said part of the order will obviously not be affected by the present review proceedings. We are informed that the original four appellants have already been given benefit of equal pay for equal work by the State authorities pursuant to the impugned order sought to be reviewed. That benefit obviously will remain untouched and unimpaired by the present review proceedings and the order to be passed therein.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties in these review proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri M. N. Krishnamani appearing for the review petitioners, submitted that this Court while disposing of the civil appeal had patently erred in treating the Government of Orissa resolution dated 7-9-1974 as one bringing about a fusion of two independent cadres of ministerial staff, one working at the headquarters in the Office of the DIG, IGP and DGP and another cadre of ministerial staff working in the district offices under the Superintendent of Police concerned. It was also submitted that when this Court treated this order as one bringing about a fusion of these two cadres at least up to 24-2-1995 by which date new rules came to be framed for both these cadres treating them as s