Decided on February 27,2020

Aruna Kumar Jena Appellant
Orissa Tourism Development Corporation Ltd Respondents


Biswanath Rath,J. - (1.) This writ petition involves the following prayer: "In the circumstances the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court will graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi, calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why the petitioner's pay shall not be revised w.e.f. 1.4.2006 under the O.R.S.P. Rules, 1998; AND Why the petitioner shall not be paid subsistence allowance in the revised pay w.e.f. 14.12.2005; AND Why the petitioner shall not be paid all arrear financial benefits accruing there from; AND If the opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said Rule may be made absolute; AND Issue any other writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances; AND For which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound, shall ever pray."
(2.) Short background involving the case is that the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the Orissa Tourism Development Corporation. On 14.12.2005 he was placed under suspension under Rule, 12 of the O.C.S. (C.C.A.), Rule, 1962 on contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. On 31.12.2005, the opposite party no.2 issued charge-sheet against the petitioner. Ultimately disciplinary proceeding was ended with direction for recovery of certain amount as well as considering the suspension period to be treated as such. Filing the writ petition, petitioner alleged that in the 65th Meeting of the Board of the Orissa Tourism Development Corporation, the Corporation implemented O.R.S.P. Rule, 1998 for all its employees but, however with effect from 1.4.2006. It is on the premises that the petitioner was facing a disciplinary proceeding through the charge-sheet dated 31.12.2005 and was placed under suspension from 14.12.2005 but, however re-instated ultimately on 7.10.2011 with the aforesaid punishment, the O.R.S.P. Rule, 1998 was implemented in the case of the petitioner with effect from 7.10.2011 on the premises that petitioner though faced a disciplinary proceeding but was under suspension right from 14.12.2005 till he was reinstated by the disposal of the disciplinary proceeding on 7.10.2011. Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was continuing as an employee of the Orissa Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., there was no occasion for applying O.R.S.P., Rule, 1998 involving the petitioner from 7.10.2011. It is for prospective application of the benefit of O.R.S.P. Rule, 1998, Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner while claiming that the Orissa Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., has adopted a discriminatory attitude by implementing such benefit O.R.S.P. Rule, 1998 in case of all other employees from 1.4.2006 and giving such benefit to the petitioner with effect from 7.10.2011. In the process, Sri Mohapatra, learned counsel prayed this Court for interfering in the action of the opposite parties and issuing appropriate direction.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 while objecting the claim of the petitioner submitted that for the petitioner facing suspension with effect from 14.12.2005 and only reinstated in service with effect from 7.10.2011, on the premises of his reinstatement with effect from 7.10.2011, the period from 14.12.2005 till 6.10.2011 dies none. It is on the pretext that the petitioner was not in service and he was reinstated in service only on 7.10.2011, he has been rightly benefited with the benefits of O.R.S.P. Rules, 1998 only after his reinstatement and, therefore, learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties contended that there is no illegality in the matter of implementation of O.R.S.P. Rule, 1998 in case of the petitioner.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.