Orissa High Court
Santosh Das vs Odisha Mining Corporation And .... ... on 29 October, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Nov-2024 11:51:50
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14395 of 2018
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Santosh Das .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Odisha Mining Corporation and .... Opposite Party (s)
others
Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. L. Mishra, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. S.P. Panda, Adv.
Along with
Mr. C. K. Rout, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-23.07.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -29.10.2024
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the Order No-6274-OMC-PERSNL/2018, dated 26.04.2018 passed by the Managing Director who rejected his representation purportedly without considering the petitioner claim of up-gradation of the pay scale of Junior Supervisor.
Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Nov-2024 11:51:50 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The petitioner is currently employed as a Junior Supervisor with Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd at the Gandhamardan mines located in Keonjhar district. The petitioner commenced service with the Corporation as a Challan Clerk on 10.05.1993, drawing a pay scale of Rs.
975-1500. Following a revision of the pay scale by the State Government effective from 01.01.1996/ the petitioner's pay scale was adjusted to Rs. 3200-85-4900 from that date.
(ii) Further, in order to address pay anomalies affecting certain employees across specific cadres, the Board of Directors convened and, during its 385th meeting on 29.06.2011, resolved to upgrade the pay scale of the Challan Clerk from Rs. 3200-85-4900 to Rs. 3600-100-5600, effective 01.01.1996.
(iii) The petitioner was granted his first time-bound scale change benefit via Head Office Order No. 19651 dated 20.08.2001, allowing him to move to the upgraded pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 4100-100-6100, effective from 10.05.1999.
(iv) Although the promotional positions of Junior Time Keeper, WarkSarkar Grade-II, Store Issuer, and Sampler Grade-II received an upgrade in their pay scale from Rs. 3600-100-5600 to Rs. 4300-115-6600 as of 01.01.1996--per Order No. 13422 dated 22.07.2011--the corresponding promotional post of Challan Clerk, namely Junior Supervisor, did not receive a similar upgrade, remaining at Rs.4100-100-6100. Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Nov-2024 11:51:50
(v) On 08.01.2016, the petitioner, through the proper channels, submitted a representation to the authority requesting an upgradation of his pay to the first time-bound scale change benefit of Rs. 4300-115-6600, effective from 01.01.1996.
(vi) In response to the inaction of the Opposite Party, the petitioner subsequently filed W.P (C) No. 3229 of 2018 before this Court. By order dated 16.03.2018, this Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the competent authority and instructed the Opposite Party to reach a decision within four weeks of receipt of the representation.
(vii) Following this, the petitioner filed his representation along with the Court's order on 26.03.2018. However, the Opposite Party issued an order dated 26.04.2018/ rejecting the petitioner's claim on the grounds that the pay scale could not be upgraded twice effective from 01.01.1996. The rejection overlooked that the pay scale for the Challan Clerk was upgraded at that time and did not account for the fact that the petitioner was granted the first time-bound scale of Junior Supervisor, that scale was upgraded. Additionally, it noted that other similarly situated employees, such as Store Assistants, Wark Sarkar Grade-I, Senior Time Keepers, and Sampler Grade-I, had their salaries upgraded to Rs. 4300-115-6600.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Nov-2024 11:51:50
(i) As per rule, since the petitioner was serving as Challan Clerk he is entitle to get scale of pay of the post of junior supervisor which is his next promotional post.
(ii) The action of the opposite parties are illegal arbitrary and a clear non-
application of mind inasmuch as when the authority upgraded the scale at the rate Rs.4300-115-6600/- with effect from 01.01.1996 in case of employees getting salary like Junior Supervisor, non-upgrade the scale of petitioner and rejection of representation is clear violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
(iii) As a result of the failure to upgrade the pay scale for Junior Supervisor, the petitioner has incurred financial losses and is currently receiving a lower pay scale than his junior colleagues. The Junior Time Keeper, WarkSarkar Grade-II, Store Issuer, and Sampler Grade-II, who were on a scale of Rs. 3600-100-5600, have been upgraded to Rs. 4300-115-6600 in their first time-bound scale change benefit due to their promotional posts being upgraded III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i). In order to address the pay anomalies experienced by employees across certain cadres, the Board of Directors convened its 385th meeting on 29.06.2011, wherein it was resolved to upgrade the pay scales of nineteen cadres effective from 01.01.1996. This decision was subsequently communicated via Order No. 13422 dated 22.07.2011, which specifically upgraded the pay scale of the Challan Clerk from Rs. Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Nov-2024 11:51:50 3200-85-4900 to Rs. 3600-100-5600, effective from 01.01.1996. The pay scale adjustment for the Challan Clerk was implemented to rectify the identified discrepancies within the cadre. Moreover, the pay scales for other positions, including Store Assistant, WarkSarkar Grade-I, Senior Timekeeper, and Sampler Grade-I, were raised to Rs. 4300-115-6600 effective 01.01.1996 as stated in the same order. Consequently, the order dated 26.04.2018 issued by the Managing Director does not constitute an illegal or arbitrary action.
(ii). The petitioner commenced employment with OMC as a Challan Clerk on 10.05.1993. In order to remedy the pay anomalies affecting certain employees, the Board of Directors determined during its 385th meeting on 29.06.2011 to elevate the pay scale of the Challan Clerk from Rs. 3200-4900 to Rs. 3600-5600 effective 01.01.1996. Following this decision, the petitioner was granted the first time-bound scale change benefit on 10.05.1999, upon the completion of six years of service, resulting in a pay scale adjustment to Rs. 4100-6100, which corresponds to the scale of the Junior Supervisor, the promotional post associated with the Challan Clerk.
(iii). The Board of Directors, in its 385th meeting on 29.06.2011, made a decision to rectify the pay anomalies of specific employees, which was communicated through Order No. 13422/OMC/P&A/2011 dated 22.07.2011. This order specifically upgraded the pay scale of the Challan Clerk from Rs.3200-85-4900 to Rs. 3600-100-5600, effective 01.01.1996, to address the identified discrepancies in pay. Therefore, there is no justification for a further upgrade of the pay scale from Rs. 3600-100- Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Nov-2024 11:51:50 5600 to Rs.4300-115-6600, effective 01.01.1996, as the pay scale cannot be adjusted twice from the same date.
(iv). It is further submitted that the Board of Directors of M/s OMC, in its 385th meeting on 29.06.2011, addressed the pay anomalies affecting employees across nineteen cadres, deciding to upgrade their pay scales effective from 01.01.1996. The pay scales of these employees was revised to lower amounts in the 5th pay revision compared to other grades, resulting in the Challan Clerk's pay being increased from Rs. 975-1500 to Rs. 3200-4900 and then to Rs. 3600-5600. Furthermore, the positions of Junior Time Keeper, WarkSarkar Grade-II, Store Issuer, and Sampler Grade-II are distinct cadres. Therefore, it is inappropriate to draw comparisons with other cadres, thus negating claims of financial loss or receiving a lower scale than juniors.
(v). In the light of the above considerations, the decision made by the Board of Directors to upgrade the pay scales of certain cadres was aimed at rectifying the pay anomalies for employees who had been on lower pay scales compared to others in the 5th pay revision effective from 01.01.1996. The pay scale of the Challan Clerk was duly considered for this upgrade. Subsequently/ the petitioner's appeal was dismissed via Order No. 6274 dated 26.04.2018, as it lacked substantive merit. Consequently, the actions undertaken by the Opposite Party are neither illegal nor arbitrary; rather, those reflect an application of due diligence and consideration, ensuring compliance with constitutional provisions under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Nov-2024 11:51:50 IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the sides and having gone through the material on record.
6. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the promotional positions of Junior Time Keeper, WarkSarkar Grade-II, Store Issuer, and Sampler Grade-II received an upgrade in their pay scale from Rs. 3600-
100-5600 to Rs.4300-115-6600 as of 01.01.1996--per Order No. 13422 dated 22.07.2011--the corresponding promotional post of Challan Clerk, namely Junior Supervisor, did not receive a similar upgradation, remaining at Rs.4100-100-6100.
7. The principle that the pay parity cannot be asserted as an indefeasible right emphasizes the crucial role of the decision-making authority in establishing remuneration. Although the employees may seek equal compensation based on perceived similarities between their roles, but such claims must be supported by a deliberate determination from the competent authority to equate the two positions, regardless of any differences in their titles or qualifications. This distinction underscores that pay scales should not be based solely on job titles but must also involve a thorough evaluation of the role of each of them, responsibilities, qualifications, and contributions.
8. Moreover, the authority's intentional evaluation is vital for maintaining fairness and equity within the organizational framework. Absent of this explicit decision-making process, assertions of pay parity risk becoming subjective, potentially leading to disputes that could compromise the integrity of the remuneration system. Ultimately, the responsibility lies Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Nov-2024 11:51:50 with the competent authority to assess and substantiate the rationale for establishing pay parity, ensuring that it accurately reflects the unique characteristics of each position rather than applying a uniform approach to disparate roles.
9. The Apex Court has confronted with a similar situation in Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. VirendraBahadurKatheria and Ors.1observed that pay parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible right unless the competent authority consciously decides to equate two posts despite their different nomenclature or qualifications.
"pay parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible enforceable right save and except where the Competent Authority has taken a conscious decision to equate two posts notwithstanding their different nomenclature or distinct qualifications. Incidental grant of same pay scale to two or more posts, without any express equation amongst such posts, cannot be termed as an anomaly in a pay scale of a nature which can be said to have infringed the right to equality under Article 16 of our Constitution"
10. Anyway, the determination of pay grades for various cadres is primarily within the jurisdiction of the government and is deeply rooted in public policy considerations. This process involves comprehensive evaluations that take into account numerous factors, including budgetary constraints, labor market conditions, and the specific needs of different public sectors. Given the complexities involved in such assessments, it is essential for these decisions to be made by the government, which possesses the requisite expertise and a broader understanding of the socio-economic implications of pay 1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1712 Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Nov-2024 11:51:50 structures. The government's role is to ensure that remuneration policies are equitable, sustainable, and aligned with public interests, thereby fostering a fair employment environment across different cadres.
11. Courts, in general, should exercise restraint when it comes to interfering in the matters related to pay grade determinations. Judicial intervention in these administrative decisions can disrupt the careful balance that the government seeks to maintain within its employment framework. Moreover, courts lack the specialized knowledge and resources that governmental bodies possess to evaluate the multifaceted aspects of remuneration policies. Therefore, unless there is a clear demonstration of arbitrary or unreasonable decision-making, the judiciary should defer to the government's expertise in this domain. This approach not only respects the separation of powers but also upholds the integrity of public policy, allowing the government to implement effective and fair pay structures without undue judicial interference.
12. In State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia,2 the Supreme Court upheld the prescription of two pay scales for the cadre of Bench Secretaries of Allahabad High Court, who were governed by Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976. The Court held that Determining whether two positions are equivalent or warrant equal pay involves evaluating various factors, primarily the duties and responsibilities associated with each role. While functions may seem similar, differences in execution can lead to disparities in 2 AIR 1989 S.C. 19 Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Nov-2024 11:51:50 quality, which cannot be assessed solely through affidavits from interested parties. The responsibility for establishing equivalence and appropriate pay scales lies with the Executive Government and specialized bodies like the Pay Commission. Courts should generally respect these determinations unless it can be shown that they were influenced by extraneous factors, warranting judicial intervention. The relevant portion is produced hereinbelow:--
"The answer to the question whether two posts are equal or should carry equal pay depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of post. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration."
V. CONCLUSION:
13. In light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds no merit in the current petition. The petitioner has not succeeded in establishing grounds for interference with the impugned order.Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 16-Nov-2024 11:51:50
14. In light of the foregoing, thisWrit Petition is dismissed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 29th October, 2024/ Page 11 of 11