Biswambar Das And Others vs The State Of Odisha And Others .... ... on 27 August, 2021

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Biswambar Das And Others vs The State Of Odisha And Others .... ... on 27 August, 2021

1. The challenges in this writ petition are to three orders issued by this Court on the administrative side. The first is the order dated 27th March, 2017 issued by the Assistant Registrar (Administration) rejecting the application of four peons namely, Krushna Chandra Bahira (Petitioner No.6), Gagan Bihari Sahoo (Petitioner No.7), Mahendra Singh (Petitioner No.11) and Basanta Kumar Pradhan (Petitioner No.25) stating that the anomaly in W.P.(C) No.17536 of 2018 Page 1 of 20 their pay vis-a-vis their juniors caused by virtue of the exercise of option in fixation of pay and consequential grant of the Revised Assured Career Progression (RACP) scheme could not be rectified by stepping up of pay or antedating the increments in terms of the resolution dated 6th February, 2013 of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha.

2. The second decision challenged is one dated 23rd July, 2018 of the Under Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Odisha informing the Assistant Registrar (Administration) that in terms of Rule 13 (xi) of the Odisha Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2017 (ORSP Rules) there shall be no stepping up of pay/antedation of increments between the seniors and juniors employees after regulation of pay by Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme. Further, relaxation of such provision under Rule 16 of the ORSP Rules, 2017 was also not possible as it was not a case of Public Interest. Consequently, the original service books of all of the above Petitioners along with others co-Petitioners in this petition were returned.

3. The third decision to be challenged is dated 6th September, 2018 of the Assistant Registrar (Administration) which is a consequential order informing the Petitioners of the aforementioned decision dated 23rd July, 2018 of the Home Department.

W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 2 of 20

4. The background facts are that the present Petitioners are Group- D employees of this Court and claim to be the senior-most in their respective cadres. Many of them joined in the 1980's and progressively earned promotions. Admittedly, all of them received revision of pay in terms of the ORSP Rules. However, it was noticed that when ORSP Rules, 1998 came into force there were discrepancies in the pay fixation inasmuch as some of them received lesser pay than their juniors. Referring to the circulars dated 1st January, 1992 and 17th February, 1992 of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha they pointed out that in terms of these circulars it had been clarified that in the event a junior gets more pay than a senior, then the pay of the senior is to be stepped up in concurrence with the Finance Department.

5. It is claimed that the Group-D employees were less informed about the provisions of law and the service and financial benefits available to them thereunder. They were working in separate locations and were not informed of the periodic changes introduced in the ORSP Rules. They acknowledge that when the ORSP Rules, 1998 came into force with effect from 1st January, 1996 there was a provision for the employees to exercise an option to come over to the revised scale. Such change of option had to be given within three months of publication of the Rules, failing which it can be deemed that the concerned employees had opted for the revised pay from that date. There was a Finance Department resolution dated 22nd September, 1999 clarifying that in exceptional cases the benefit of change of option may be still W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 3 of 20 allowed. The Petitioners claim that they did not anticipate that by coming over to the revised scale under the ORSP Rules 1998, they would lose one increment and consequential fixation of pay under Rule 75 (b) of the Odisha Service Code (OSC). They claim that as a result, with effect from 1st January, 1996, they sustained a substantial loss in their salary and the anomaly of their juniors getting higher pay commenced. This was perpetuated in further revisions of ORSP Rules in 2008 and 2017. As on the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 15th November, 2018 they realized that the pay anomaly had grown wider.

6. In the meanwhile, on 6th February, 2013 the RACP was commenced by the Finance Department for the employees of the Government of Odisha in modification of earlier ACPs. An ACP is granted to a Government employee under ORSP Rules, 2008 on completion of 15, 25 and 30 years of service in a particular cadre or post. This was similar to the erstwhile Time Bound Advancement (TBA) scheme floated by the State Government prior to the ORSP Rules, 1998. As far as Class-IV employees were concerned, they were entitled to TBA after 20 years of service. It is claimed that the Registry of this Court did not apprise the Petitioners, who had been entitled to TBA, of the anomalies under the ORSP Rules, 1998 after its commencement but unilaterally fixed their pay in a routine manner under the ORSP Rules, 1998 with effect from 1st January, 1996. It is claimed that in the process the Petitioners lost the following two benefits:

W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 4 of 20

(i) Periodical increments and the benefit under the TBA scheme;

(ii) Consequential loss of pay suffered by the Petitioner is attributed by them to the Officials of the Registry.

7. It is claimed that 2nd RACP was accepted by the Petitioners without prejudice to their claims with reference to the provisions after the change of option allowed as per ORSP Rules, 1998 and 2008. It is claimed that both ORSP Rules, 1998 and 2008 enable the State Government to allow change of option and that the Registrar of this Court could have facilitated their cases for such a change.

8. It is claimed that although the State Government revised grade pay of Group-D employees on 8th March, 2016 by a resolution of the Finance Department of that date, the case of the Petitioners was not taken up.

9. In the meanwhile, the 3rd RACP was allowed to some of the Petitioners, who completed 30 years of service by an Office Memorandum dated 12th July, 2016. According to the Petitioners, even thereafter some of them were drawing less salary than their juniors. They claim that such disparity has occurred only because of the mistake committed by the Registry of this Court. The decisions of the Assistant Registrar (Administration) dated 27th March, 2017 and the Home Department dated 23rd July, 2018, the consequential communication of the Asst. Registrar W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 5 of 20 (Administration) dated 6th September, 2018 are all assailed on this ground.

10. Reference is made to the clarifications issued way back on 8th April, 2010 by the Finance Department in response to the application sent under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) on various aspects of ORSP Rules, 2008. Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners commenced his submissions by referring to those clarifications and in particular the following questions and answers:

     Sl.No.         Points of doubt                  Clarification
        1                   2                             3
        1      Whether a Government          Yes. For example, the
               employee can elect in         employee who was in the
               switch over to the revised    pre-revised scale of pay of
               pay structure on the date     Rs.4500-7000 and availed
               of availing TBA Scale in      TBA      scale of pay or

the existing scale in terms Rs.4750-7500/- during the of 2nd proviso to Rule-5 of period from 1.1.2006 to ORSP Rules, 2008 ? 24.12.2008 may opt to come over to the revised scale of pay, 2008 from the date of availing TBA scale of pay.

In such an eventuality, his pay is to be fixed in the revised scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800/- with G.P. of Rs.4200/- against the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.4750-7500/- from the date of exercising of option.

W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 6 of 20

The option can be exercised in the form prescribed in the Second Schedule of Rule-6 (1) of ORSP Rules, 2008 indicating the date of availing TBA.

2. xx xx

3. Whether one increment in No, because the pay of the the revised pay structure employee has been fixed in will be allowed to the the revised pay structure employees whose date of taking into account one increment is due on increment already 01.01.2006 sanctioned on 01.01.2006 in the existing pre-revised scale.

4. Whether an employee who Yes. For example: - 'A' is was drawing more or an employee who is senior equal pay in the pre- to 'B' in the same grade in revised scale than that of the cadre was drawing equal his junior immediately pay or more than 'B' before 1.1.2006 or as on immediately before 1.1.2006 and subsequently 1.1.2006. But, in the revised gets his pay fixed in the pay structure the pay of 'B' revised pay structure at a was fixed at a higher stage stage lower than that of his than the senior 'A'. In this junior can step up his pay case, the pay of the senior to the same stage in the 'A' shall be stepped up in revised pay structure with the revised pay structure as that of his junior? that of his junior."

11. It is thus claimed that it is possible even now for the above anomaly be corrected to ensure that the Petitioners do not get paid less than their juniors. It is pointed out that all the Petitioners have and unblemished service records and have been allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar (EB). It is submitted that the mistake is an artificial one which could have been avoided by the officials of this Court.

W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 7 of 20

12. A reply has been filed on behalf of this Court on the administrative side by the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4. At the outset it is submitted that the revision of pay rules formulated by the Government of Odisha in respect of salary components and its ancillary benefits and other terms and conditions are made applicable to the employees of this Court when it is accepted and adopted by the Chief Justice in terms of Article 229 of the Constitution of India. As far as this Court is concerned, after adoption by the High Court of the revised pay Rules of the Government of Odisha in toto or with modifications as may be prescribed the said ORSP Rules, it became effective for the High Court employees. All subsequent instructions guidelines and clarifications issued by the Government of Odisha relating to revised pay scale from time to time apply to the employees of this Court.

13. It is claimed that the establishment of this Court abides by the statutory Rules, circulars/guidelines received from the Government of Odisha from time to time regarding fixation of pay of Group-D employees. It is stated that Petitioner Nos.1 to 9 have received the benefit of as many as five regular pay revisions i.e. from the years 1985, 1989, 1996, 2006 and 2016. Petitioner Nos.10 to 13 have been extended the benefit of four regular pay revisions. The remaining Petitioners have been extended the benefit of three regular pay revisions, 1996, 2006 and 2016 as per the terms and conditions laid down in the ORSP Rules and the instructions and guidelines issued by the Government of Odisha. The pay of the Petitioners has been fixed each time after implementation of the ORSP Rules under the guidelines and the procedure prescribed thereunder. The Registry of this Court W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 8 of 20 claims that the Petitioners have been given, at each occasion, an opportunity of exercising their option prior to fixation of their pay. After obtaining the option for acceptance in respect of the Group-D employees the process of fixation of pay commences.

14. It is further pointed out that apart from the above, Pay Fixation Officer and Checking Officer were nominated by this Court as per the instruction of the Government of Odisha on each pay fixation. They undertook the work of pay fixation as per the instructions contained in respective rules in a prescribed Schedule. This was also post-checked at the Government level on each occasion i.e. by the Financial Advisor, Government of Odisha in the Home Department. Accordingly, it is claimed that there could hardly be any chance of any error being committed or there being any whimsical or arbitrary fixation of pay in respect of any of the employees. It is also pointed out that the circulars dated 1st January, 1992 and 17th February, 1992 of the Finance Department as well as the subsequent letter dated 21st October, 2010 limit the opportunity of senior employees claiming the enhancement at par with the junior employees to two. It is further pointed out that most of the Petitioners who have pointed out that their pay is less than any particular junior employee have been granted stepping up of pay or ante-dating of annual increment twice i.e. the maximum numbers of chances for removing anomaly in pay between the senior and junior.

15. As regards the 3rd RACP under the resolution dated 6th February, 2013 of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha, reference is made to the resolution dated 6th February 2013 where it was W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 9 of 20 categorically mentioned that "Financial upgradation under RACPs shall be purely personal to the employees and shall have no relevance to his position of seniority in the grade. As such, there shall be no stepping up of pay/antedation of increment between senior and junior after regulation of pay under RACPs".

16. The Opposite Parties 3 and 4 state that there is a similar restriction even under the MACP allowed to Group D employees. Thus, in these cases, the anomaly of the junior employees getting higher pay than the senior cannot be remedied. It is pointed out that all the cases were promptly referred to the Government of Odisha as and when the issue was raised and the Registry is abided by the decisions of the Government of Odisha in that regard.

17. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 more or less on the same lines. It is claimed that the State Government is no way responsible for drawal of lesser pay by the Petitioners since the Petitioners have never exercised their option within the time limit prescribed and did not approach the Government of Odisha even before issue of ORSP Rules, 2008 and 2017. They have voiced their grievance nearly 20 years after the pay revision under the ORSP 1998 and after the revision has taken place twice.

18. The rejoinder affidavit of the Petitioners reiterates the averments in the writ petition. In an additional affidavit dated 9th October, 2020 the Assistant Registrar (Administration) of this Court has brought on record a copy of the notice dated 22nd March, 1999 issued by this Court W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 10 of 20 on the administrative side whereby all the staff of the Court were directed to exercise their respective option in the prescribed form within three months from the date of issue of the aforesaid notice i.e. w.e.f. 22nd March, 1999 for fixation of their respective pay as required under Rule-5(2) of the ORSP Rules, 1998. It is further pointed out that some of the employees did exercise the option in terms of the above notice.

19. When the matter was heard on 12th January, 2021 this Court noted the above position taken in various affidavits filed. Some more time was granted to the Petitioners to file documents to show when they first informed this Court about wanting to withdraw the option earlier exercised. Pursuant there to an additional affidavit has been filed by the Petitioners on 4th October, April, 2021. On this aspect, it is stated that the Petitioners could not maintain any file to keep all their service records including the representations/ documents/communications in their favour. However after thorough search only 7 out of 25 writ Petitioners (the Petitioner No.6 is dead) could trace out their representations and which were being filed for ready reference and in compliance of the order dated 12th January, 2021.

20. A perusal of those representations shows their dates as 3rd October, 2008 and 4th, 5th and 14th November, 2008. There is , however, nothing to indicate whether and when they were actually received by the Registry. Therefore, these documents are really not convincing.

W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 11 of 20

21. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

22. Mr. Das, apart from reiterating the submissions in the petition, places reliance on the 'next below' rule, which postulates that a senior employee cannot be placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis his junior in regard to salary. Reliance is placed on the decisions in D.D. Suri v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 1596; R.K. Sethi v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission AIR 1997 SC 899; R.L. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 968 and Union of India v. M.V. Mohanan Nair (2020) 5 SCC 421.

23. Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate reiterates that the change of option was admissible to the employees in the event at a later stage of service that a junior gets salary higher than a senior. Reference is again made to the Finance Department letter dated 8th April, 2010. It is submitted that if the Petitioners have been given an opportunity to change their option in consonance with the above circular, there will be no grievance of the Petitioners.

24. Mr. Sahoo draws attention to Rule 5 of the ORSP Rules, which reads as under:

"(i) save as otherwise provided in these rules, a Govt.

servant, shall draw pay in the corresponding revised scale of pay effective from 1st January, 1996.

W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 12 of 20

Provided that a Govt. servant may elect to continue to draw pay in the existing scale or until he vacates his post or ceases to draw pay in that scale.

Provided that a Govt. servant may elect to continue draw pay in the existing scale until the date in which he earns his next or subsequent increment in the existing scale or until he vacates his post or cease to draw pay in that scale.

Provided further that a Govt. servant who prior to commencement of these rules, had elected in pursuance of the provisions of the Odisha Revised Scale of Pay (for Non-Gazetted Officers) Rules 1974 or the Orissa Revised Scale of pay (for Gazetted Officers) Rules, 1974 or the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1981 or the Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1985 or the Orissa Revised scale of Pay Rules, 1989 as the case may be, to come over to the existing scale from a date after the 1st Day of January 1996 shall unless he exercises fresh option".

25. He also draws attention to the notes below Rule 5 and in particular Rules 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 which read thus:

"(2) The option under the first proviso to this Rule shall be exercised in writing in the form appended as Fifth Schedule so as to reach the authority mentioned in Sub-

rule (3) within three months from the date of publication of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 or within such further period as may be determined by the Finance Department of the Government in this behalf, or, where an existing scale has been revised or any existing provision regulating fixation of pay has been modified by an order, made subsequent to that date, within three months from the date of such order.

Provided that-

W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 13 of 20

In the case of a Government servant who, on the date of such publication or, as the case, may be, the date of such order, is on leave, deputation, foreign service or training, as the case may be, the said option may be exercised in writing so as to reach the said authority within the period specified under Sub-rule (2) or within three months from the date of his/her taking charges of his/her post under the State Government, or Where a Government servant is under suspension on the 1st day of January, 1996, the option may be exercised within three months from the date of his/her return to his/her duty if that date is later than the date specified in this Sub-rule, or Where a Government servant has been discharged, dismissed or removed from Government service between the 1st day of January, 1996 and the date of publication of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998, the option may be exercised within a period of three months from the date of publication of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998, or Where a Government servant died between the 1st day of January, 1996 and the date of publication of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 or where a Government servant died or dies on or after the date of publication of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 without exercising any option within the time limit, the option shall be deemed to have been exercised for the revised scale with effect from the 1st day of January, 1996 or such later date as is most beneficial to his/her beneficiaries, provided the revised scale is more beneficial, or Where a Government servant retired between the 1st day of January, 1996 and the date of publication of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 or where a Government servant, on the date of publication of the Orissa Revised W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 14 of 20 Scales of Pay Rules, 1998, was, on leave preparatory to retirement, the option shall be deemed to have been exercised for the revised scale with effect from the 1st day of January, 1996 or such later date as is most beneficial to him/her, provided the revised scale, is more beneficial.

(3) The option shall be intimated by the Government servant to the Head of Office and where the Government servant is himself/herself the Head of Office, the option shall be intimated to authority competent to sanction his/her normal increment.

(4) xx xx xx (5) The option once exercised shall be final, unless the authority referred to in Sub-rule (3) otherwise directs:

Provided that such authority shall not give any direction inconsistent with, or repugnant to the provisions of sub- rule(2).

(6) The option shall be limited to the date of increment in the existing scale falling due within a period of one year, that is, from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1996 for the purpose of calculating forty percent benefit over and above the basic pay with reference to Clause (i) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7;

Provided that a Government servant who, prior to the commencement of these Rules, had enacted, in pursuance of the provisions of the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (For Non-Gazetted Officers)Rules, 1974, or the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay (For Gazetted Officers) Rules, 1974, or the Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1981 or the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1985, or the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1989, as the case may be, to come over to the existing scale after the first day of January, 1996, then his/her option to the revised scale of pay on the W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 15 of 20 said date unless he/she represents in writing to the Head of Office to cancel his/her earlier option within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of these rules."

26. The corresponding provision of ORSP Rules, 2008 and 2017 are also referred to by Mr. Sahoo. It is submitted that the High Court has been scrupulously following the instructions regarding each pay fixation. A Pay Fixation Officer and Checking Officer have been nominated by the Registry and therefore, there is remote chance of committing any error. Mr. Sahoo, submits that the number of chances for stepping up of pay for an employee is only two and these have been availed by each of the Petitioners. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. v. Dwarka Prasad Koolwal (2015) 12 SCC 51 and PEPSU RTC v. Aman Deep Singh (2017) 2 SCC 766 and certain observations in Mohanan Nair (supra) in support of the submissions of the Opposite Parties.

27. The above submissions have been considered. In service jurisprudence, fixation of pay of a government servant is governed by an elaborate set of rules. Most of the High Courts have, in terms of Article 229 of the Constitution, adopted with small changes here and there, the Rules applicable to the employees of the concerned State Government in toto insofar as the employees of the High Court are concerned.

28. The position as far as this Court is concerned, is no different. As already noted, this Court endeavors to scrupulously follow the guidelines/circulars/notifications/memorandum issued by the State W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 16 of 20 Government from time to time in regard to pay fixation. All revisions in the Rules beginning from ORSP Rules, 1998 and to its counterpart 2008 and 2017 are strictly adhered to. Being conscious that despite all of that there still be instances of anomaly in the pay fixation, this Court has appointed a Pay Fixation Officer and Officers to specifically verify the anomalies. In other words, they exercised the pay fixation of its employees taken seriously by this Court.

29. While it is possible that some of the Petitioners may not have been aware of all the changes in the rules and the implications of not exercising options within the time prescribed, it would not be fair to lay the blame at the doorstep of the Registry of this Court particularly when it has been issuing circulars promptly from time to time for wide publicity by affixing them in the notice boards in the Court and circulating them to various branches for the information of the employees. It is a fact that some of the employees have been diligent in following the same and asking to exercise their options from time to time. These employees belong to Group-D category as well. Copies of the circulars have been enclosed in the additional affidavit. The fact that many of the employees have exercised their option in time has not been disputed by the Petitioners.

30. The Petitioners were given an opportunity to place on record the documents to show that they agitated their grievances as soon as they came to know the anomalies. This was because of the stand taken both by this Court in its administrative side as well as the State Government is that the Petitioners had waited admittedly for a long time to ventilate W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 17 of 20 their grievance and after having had the benefit of pay revisions from 1998 onwards. The documents placed on record by the Petitioners with the additional affidavit to substantiate their claim having ventilated their grievances before the Court on the administrative side promptly and diligently do not inspire confidence.

31. Nevertheless in the matters of this kind the approach is not go entirely on the issue of the lapses and delay but to examine the merits. It is with that approach that this Court has required the Opposite Parties to file affidavits to explain their actions. As far as the next below rule is concerned, while the legal position as explained by the decisions relied upon by the Petitioners cannot be disputed, equally there is nothing to show that this Court slipped up on promptly informing the Petitioners and other employees of the changes in the Rules and about time limit for the exercise of the option or change of the option so exercised. Even after the Petitioners approached this Court on the administrative side, their cases were taken up with the State Government and this Court went entirely by the position in the Rules in this regard. The Petitioners have not been able to show why the decision of the Government in the Home Department declining their request suffers from arbitrariness or unreasonableness and most importantly why it is contrary to the Rules.

32. The exercise for the application of the next below rule cannot be an empty formality. It requires to be applied where the facts and circumstances so warrant. If it is shown, as has been in this case, that the Petitioners failed to apply for change of the option exercised within W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 18 of 20 a reasonable time as provided under the Rules. They appear to have missed the bus not only on the first occasion after the ORSP 1998 Rules but on two successive occasions thereafter in 2008 and 2017. In the circumstances, it is difficult for the next below rule to be mechanically applied.

33. In this context, the following observations in Mohanan Nair Case (supra) are relevant:

"38. The prescription of Pay Scales and incentives are matters where decision is taken by the Government based upon the recommendation of the expert bodies like Pay Commission and several relevant factors including financial implication and court cannot substitute its views. As held in Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72, the court should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when the court is satisfied that the decision of the Government is arbitrary. Even in a case where the court takes the view that order/Scheme passed by the Government is not an equitable one, ordinarily only a direction could be given to the State Government or the authority for consideration of the matter and take a decision....."

34. Further in Dwarka Prasad Koolwal (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under:

"58. ....no employee had any inherent right to either demand and extension of the period for exercising the switch over option or claim a right to exercise switchover option at any time prior to his retirement, and no such right has been shown to the Supreme Court."

W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 19 of 20

35. The Court is satisfied that in the present case the Registry of this Court has not acted unreasonably or unfairly by not informing the Petitioners of their having to exercise their options or for change of the option so exercised in good time or failing to act upon the Petitioners' representations as prescribed under the Rules as regard the stepping up of pay fixation. It is trite that there are limitations as regards any indulgence being granted to the Petitioners by this Court after they have exhausted all their chances as regards stepping up or pay fixation.

36. Sufficient grounds have not been made out warranting judicial intervention under Articles 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

37. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

(S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (B.P. Routray) Judge S.K.Jena/PA W.P.(C) No. 17536 of 2018 Page 20 of 20

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court