LAWS(ORI)-2017-9-113

SRI BIRANCHI NARAYAN PRADHAN Vs. CESU AND OTHERS

Decided On September 05, 2017
Sri Biranchi Narayan Pradhan Appellant
V/S
Cesu And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to take steps for re-fixation of Fitment Scale of pay in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.4.2017 as per Annexure-1 and no to recover the excess amount drawn on wrong pay fixation as alleged in Annexure-4, take immediate steps to pay Fitment scale of pay w.e.f. May, 2006 with a further direction upon the opposite parties to treat the petitioner as A.E. (El.) in view of the order dated 14.01.2003.

(2.) Case of the petitioner in brief is that he has joined his service under as Senior Charge-man under OSEB w.e.f. 25.08.1982 and continued there. He was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) w.e.f. 26.08.1989, the Govt. of Orissa has enacted Orissa Electricity Reform Act, 1995 with an intention to provide for the restructuring of the Electricity industry for the rationalization of the Generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity for avenues for participation of private sector entrepreneurs in the Electricity industry. The said Act came into force w.e.f. 20.04.1995. The provision of Electricity Reform Act, 1995 empowered the State Government to frame Transfer Scheme to provide for the transfer of the assets, interest in assets, rights, and liabilities along with the personnel to GRIDCO or OHPC as the case may be. The petitioner was transferred and permanently absorbed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) w.e.f. 1.4.1997 in view of the Transfer Scheme, Rules, 1996 under the Orissa Electricity Reform Act, 1996 and was given benefit of Fitment Policy made applicable by the GRIDCO vide office order dated 30.07.1997, whereby the petitioner's scale of pay was fixed to Rs. 6500-225-11000/-, the scale of pay for the petitioner after Fitment was fixed at Rs. 6500/-+ R.P.P. Rs. NIL w.e.f. 01.04.1997.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the direction of the part of recovery is also sustainable in the eye of law in view of the guideline formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafique Masih reported in AIR (2015) SC 696 .