Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 09.05.2011 (Annexure-11) passed by the respondent no.3 by rejecting the claim of the arrears of salary on account of contractual appointment as Personal Assistant/Stenographer and the petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents for payment of following amount to which he is duly entitled to:- (a) To pay the difference of arrears of salary on account of increasing monthly contractual amount with effect from 27.12.2007 to May, 2008 in view of Finance Department Resolution dated 27.12.2007. (b) To pay the arrears of salary from November, 2008 to 24.03.2009. (c) To fix the contractual amount on the basis of 6th Pay Revision with effect from 01.01.2009 and pay the arrears of revised contractual amount from 25.03.2009 to May, 2009. (d) To pay the difference of arrears of contractual amount between unrevised and revised pay-scale on account of revision of pay from 01.06.2009 to 31.10.2009 as also contractual amount from 01.11.2009 to 08.11.2009. The petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents for payment of statutory interest upon the arrears of contractual amount to which the petitioner is duly and legally entitled.
(2.) The factual matrix as revealed in the writ application in a nutshell is that earlier the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.4655 of 2010 praying for various relief including contractual amount and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.11.2010 with direction to the petitioner to file detailed representation before the respondent no.3 and the respondent no.3 was directed for taking decision. Indeference to direction of the Hon'ble Court dated 23.11.2010, the petitioner submitted representation. Since, no decision was taken on the representation filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed a Contempt Case No.162 of 2011 and during the pendency of the Contempt Case, the impugned order dated 09.05.2011 has been passed vide Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Personal Assistant vide letter dated 05.06.2002 and the appointment of the petitioner was made as per the request of the respondent no.3 to respondent no.2 for appointment against the sanctioned post of Personal Assistant. Appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time in a regular manner vide various extension letters. While continuing as such, there was enhancement of the contractual amount in view of the Finance Department Resolution dated 27.12.2007 and in pursuance to the said resolution, the contractual amount of the petitioner was enhanced to Rs.10,075/-. The Finance Department Resolution dated 18.10.2008, the dearness allowance was raised by 54% and once again vide resolution dated 30.09.2009, the dearness allowance was raised from 22% to 27% of the basic salary. Once again vide Finance Department Resolution as contained in memo dated 25.03.2009 the contractual amount of contractual appointees has been revised with effect from 01.01.2009 in view of 6th Pay Revision. Despite the resolution of the Finance Department, the respondent no.3 rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 09.05.2011 vide Annexure-11. Though, the petitioner is entitled to huge arrears of salary to the tune of Rs.2.50 lakhs only a meagre amount of Rs.50,375/- has been paid to the petitioner as evident from letter dated 18.01.2012 issued by respondent no.3 vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.05.2011 vide Annexure-11 the petitioner has been constrained to approach the Court seeking direction to the respondents for relief as stated hereinabove under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the action of the respondent in passing the impugned order dated 09.05.2011 is tainted with arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of power because the respondent no.3 has not followed the relevant resolution of the Finance Department, so far as revision of the contractual amount and payment of revised salary is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondent no.3 appears to have been taken not in consonance with Government Finance Departmental Circular. Therefore, the said action of the respondent is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.;