Holding

There was no fusion of the two ministerial cadres at any time; the 1974 resolution did not create a single cadre, and therefore the appeal fails.

Summary

The petitioners, who are police ministerial officers working in district offices, sought parity of pay scales and other emoluments with their counterparts in the headquarters (DIG, IG, DGP) based on a 1974 Government of Orissa resolution that created a separate cadre of police ministerial officers. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether that resolution effected a fusion of the two erstwhile cadres and thus entitled the district officers to the same benefits. The Court examined the wording of the resolution, the subsequent 1995 Rules that demarcated the cadres, and the relevant statutory provisions. It held that the resolution merely created a distinct cadre of ministerial officers separate from executive police officers and did not merge the district and headquarters cadres. Consequently, there was no fusion at any time, and the appeal failed, though the Court reiterated that monetary benefits on the basis of equal pay for equal work remain available as per earlier judgments. The appeal and the related writ petition were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the 7 September 1974 Government of Orissa resolution created a single cadre of police ministerial officers, thereby fusing the district and headquarters cadres.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to parity of pay scales and other emoluments with ministerial staff serving at the headquarters.
Whether the Orissa District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995 established separate cadres and negated any prior fusion.
What are the consequences of any alleged fusion on promotion and benefit entitlements.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 309, s. Article 311
Police Act, 1861s. 7, s. 8

Subjects

parity of benefitsequal pay for equal workpolice ministerial officerscadre fusionrecruitment rulesArticle 309Orissa Policecivil appealreview petition

Judgment

A SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF ORISS/. AND ORS.

MAY 9, 2002

B [G.B. PATTANAIK AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.]

Orissa District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995.
c Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Assistants a_nd Section Officers in the Offices of the Heads of
Department) Rules, 1994. .

Service law:

D Parity of benefits of pay scales and promotional benefits-State of
Orissa-Police Department-Ministerial staff-Working in Headquarters and
those working in Districts-Held, there was no fusion of two cadres prior to
or after 1995 Rules-Resolution dated 7th September, 1974 of Government of
Orissa-1'._ormation of Police Ministerial Officers cadre-Effect and
E interpretation of.

The issue in this appeal and writ petition relates to parity of benefits
of pay scales and other emoluments between the members of the
ministerial staff in the Police Department of Orissa working in the offices
of the Superintendent of Police and other district officers with that of the
F ministerial staff working in the offices of DIG, IG or DGP at the
Headquarters.

For claiming parity reliance was placed on the Resolution dated /th
September, 1974 of Government of Orissa, Home Department,
Bhubaneshwar. The said Resolution pertained to formation of all Police
...
G Ministerial Officers in the State into one separate cadre and directed the
recruitment to be under section 7 of the Police Act, 1861. Further all Police
Ministerial Officers in the State were to be designated as Police Officers
(Ministerial).

H 976
..
I
SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY v. STATE 977
The Orissa Administrative Tribunal by its order dated I Ith July, A
1988 dismissed the petition. It held that (i) the contention of the petitioners
that a single cadre for all Police Ministerial Officers irrespective of the
office/level they were working had been created under Resolution cannot
be accepted. Consequently, there is no force in the contention of the
petitioners that they were entitled to be considered for promotion for posts B
occurring in the higher ranks in the office of DIG/IG/DGP after the
Resolution was passed; and (ii) the Resolution does not create a single
cadre for Police Ministerial Officers irrespective of the office/level in \Vhich
they happen to be working. The main purpose of mentioning in para 2 of
... the Resolution that the police ministerial officers.. \Viii form a separate cadre
within the general cadre of the Orissa Police and will be designated as C
Police Officers (Ministerial) was to distinguish them from the executive
· police officers and as is clear from the mention in para 3 of the Resolution
'since the duties assigned to them are different, they will have no occasion
to exercise the powers and functions of the executive Police Officers.'

Against the decision of Tribunal appeal was preferred before this D
Court and this Court in its order dated November 28, 1995 found that
Orissa District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995 made a .demarcation between the
ministerial staff working in the District Offices and those working in the
offices of DIG, IG and DGP. E

Against the order of this Court dated 28th November, 1955, the State
Government filed a revie\\o' petition \Vhich \\.'as dismissed. Thereafter, an
application for modification of the order dated 28th November, 1995 and
impleadment was filed by some of the petitioners claiming to be affected
•' by the order on the ground that the order was not binding on them. The F
application for modification and impleadment was converted into a revie\\'
petition by this Court and by its order dated 16th April, 1998 the review
petition was allowed and order dated 28th November, 1955 was recalled.
The connected writ petition was also restored. It was also clarified that
benefits granted pursuant to order dated 28th November, 1995 were not G
to be disturbed. The question before this Court in appeal and writ petition
is: Whether by virtue of Government of Orissa Resolution dated 7.9.1974
any fusion of t\vo erstwhile cadres of ministerial staff working in the offices
of DIG, IG and DGP at headquarters and the ministerial staff working in
- 'r
the districts under the District Superintendents of Police was effected till
24.2.1995 when the Orissa District Police Mi1<isterial Officers (Method of H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995 came into force
treating them as separate cadres and if so, what .vould be its consequences?

Dismissing the appeal as well as the writ petition, the Court

HELD: I. The order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted in any way.
B There has been no fusion at any point of time even prior to the enactment
of the Orissa District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment
and Conditions of Service), Rules 1955 coming into force from 24th
February, 1995. [992-D-E[

C
..
2. Presently two sets of Recruitment Rules for ministerial staff to
the office of the DG/IG of Police as well as to the district offices framed
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are available for proper
guidance. Whereas the Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment
and Conditions of Service of Assistant and Section Officers in the Offices
of the Heads of Department) Rules, 1994 govern the office of the DG/IG
D of Police, the Orissa District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of
Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995 govern the area of
district offices. Prior to the framing of the aforesaid recruitment rules,
the field was covered under executive instructions and by reason of
methodology of recruitment and the qualifications being different for
E appointment for the two categories, the distinction between the two sets
of officers have always been maintained. [991-F-H; 992-AI

3. Significantly, however, the entire police administration in the State
of Orissa stands governed by the Orissa Police Manual, which in effect
maintains two classes of ministerial staff to wit, in the office of the DG/
F IG of Police and in districts in the office of Superintendent of Police. The "") ~
educational qualifications required and the method of recruitment are
different as regards the appointment in the aforesaid posts. (990-F-Gl

4. In that view of the matter, question of fusion of two erstwhile
cadres of ministerial staff at the DG/IG of Police and in the districts does
G not and cannot arise and the subsequent framing of Rules under Article
309 lends credence to such an observation. (992-DI

5. As regards the consequences, be it, however, noted that by reason
of specific direction of this Court that even if the appellants herein
H ultimately lose in the civil appeal and it is held that there was no fusion
SISIR KUMAR MOl-IANTY '"STATE [UMESH C. BANERJEE. J.J 979

of the two cadres of ministerial staff but still on the ground of equal pay A
for equal work remain entitled to the monetary benefits. The factum of
judicial precedents being a valued consideration in our justice delivery
system, no departure can be made therefrom and as such the monetary
benefits, even after the dismissal of the appeal, as is otherwise available
to the appellants in terms of the earlier judgment, be made available so B
as to comply with the terms of the order. 1992-E-H I

Ashok Kumar Paltanaik and Ors.. v. Sla/e of Orissa and Anr., I19881 6
SCC 176 and Sisir Kumar Mohan1y v. Stale o/Orissa, 1199617SCC120,
referred to.

6. The effect of Resolution shall have to be judged on the basis of
c
document itself and not other external aid is permissible. A careful scrutiny
of paragraph 2 of the resolution dated 7th September, 1974 and in
particular the user of the language along with "the existing police
ministerial officers will form a separate cadre within the general cadre of
the Orissa Police and will be designated as Police Officers (Ministerial)" D
- ... makes the situation abundantly clear as regards the creation of a separate
cadre called "Police Officers (Ministerial)". 1988-D-FI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2091 of
1990.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 11. 7.88 of the Orissa Administrative
Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar in T.A. No. 819/87 in O.J.C. No. 1215 of 1984.

WITH

WP. (C) No. 692 of 1993 F
Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, R.B. Mehrotra, Bhaskar
... P. Gupta, R.C. Srivastava, P.S. Mishra, J.R. Das, R.B. Misra, K. Misra, Ms .
Sangeeta Sharma, Kavin Gulati, Nandini Gore, Raj Kumar Gupta for A.N.
Bardiyar, Kirti Renu Mishra, K.N. Tripathi, Abhijit Sengupta, Ms. Rachna
Srivastava, Na Iin Tripathi, Naveen Tripathi, Vishnu Sharma for Sarla Chandra G
C.K. Sucharita, P.K. Gaur, Rajesh and Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, for the
appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BANERJEE, .J. Parity of benefits of pay scales and other emoluments H
980 SUPREMI·: COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R.

A between the members of the ministerial staff in the Police Department of
Orissa working as Lower Division Clerks in the office of the Superintendent
of Police and other District Offices with that of the ministerial staff working
in the offices of DIG, IG or DGP at the headquarters, has been the core issue
for which litigation persists for more that three decades. The matter in issue
B had a chequered career and has had to travel more than once before this
Court, but the finality is yet to be reached and parties are yet to get justice
in accordance with law in our justice delivery system. Judicial process is
slow and delay in disposal of matters in this sub-continent is not unknown
but that, however, does not warrant protracted litigation to be continued more
than three decades-unfortunately. the facts presently under consideration
C depict such a protraction and the delayed process of our justice delivery
system. Before we proceed further, we are emboldened to put on record our
displeasure as to the method and manner in which this particular litigation
proceeded even before this Court. Blames we do not want to attribute but the
fact remains judicial process has seen probably-its saddest and poorest exposure
in this matter as regards the time period. Faith, belief and confidence of the
D people cannot but be termed to be the halmark of our justice delivery system
and if matters like this proceed, there would neither be faith or belie~ nor
confidence in the judiciary-a state of affairs which cannot but imply a total
failure and breakdown of the entire constitutional system of the country since
judiciary, the third pillar of the Constitution, stands out to be the guardian-
E angel of the society. It is not that this Court has not been able to deal with
the matters like the present one but it so happened that the judicial process
has taken its own time and thus the toll. In a progressive society judiciary
must be active and should be a,ble to dispense with the justice delivery system
in quickest possible period of time - this is not the requirement presently, but
has been the well-recognised principle since the advent of judicial process in
F the society. On this score, in fine we wish to mention that both the Bench and
the Bar alike owe a duty to the people of the country to make available the
justice delivery system with utmost promptitude and our conjoint efforts only
would be able to bring forth a change. -
G Adve1ting to the matter under consideration be it noticed that as against
the order dated July 11, 1988 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar in T.A. No. 819 of 1987(0JC 121/84) this Court upon a detailed
hearing disposed of the appeal being Civil Appeal No. 2091 of 190 in the
manner following:

"A reading of the resolution dated September 7, 1984 would
H
SISIR KUMAR MOl IANTY 1·. STATE fUMESH C. BANERJEE . .I.] 981

clearly show and also indicate the intention that the 111inisterial staff A
is different from the executive staff of the Police Department. There
is no further sub-division atnongst the 1ninisterial staff\vorking in the
district headquarters and those working in the head offices, viz., DIO,
JG and DGP offices. Under these circumstances, the appellants are
entitled to the parity of the treat1nent \Vith the 111inisterial staff working B
in the office of DIG, JG and DGP. Since the Rules have co111e into
force prospectively. viz., from February 24, 1995, whatever conditions
prevailing preceding that date would continue to operate and be
applicable to them and the conditions in respect of anyone recruited,
tinder the Rules will be governed by the Rules separately.

Thus considered, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the
c
benefits of the resolution dated September 7, 1974. The appeal is
accordingly allowed to the above extent."

The resolution dated 7th September, 1974 spoken of in the order
pertained to formation of all police ministerial officers in the State into one D

- ,..,
separate cadre and directed the recruit1nent to be under Section 7 of the
Police Act of 1861 and all police ministerial officers in the State were to be
designated as Police officers (Ministerial). Be it further noted that pursuant
to the said resolution, the ministerial officers whether posted in the JG or
DIG's office or in the District officers' office exercised their option to be
recruited under the Police Act, 1861, whereupon they were issued necessary E
certificates under Section 8 of the Police Act.

It is significant to note that above noted Civil Appeal No. 2091 of 1990
came up for consideration before this court once before on September 7,
1994, wherein this court directed as under:
F
"Shri Santosh Hegde, learned senior counsel for the appellant, relying

- upon the resolution of the Govt. of Orissa, dated September 7, 1974
in particular paras 2 and 4 thereof, contended that all the police
ministerial officers were treated as whole unit, though they had earlier
formed part of separate cadres and were given the benefits of special G
pay, rent free acco1n1nodation, house rent allowance although as a
common cadre, incidentally all the benefits of the common cadre also
stood extended. In support thereof, he sought to place reliance on the
orders of transfer and postings effected in the office order No. 617-
- 'I'
Administration, dated May 4, 1981 in which certain staff were inter·
transferred from DPO office to DIG SR etc. H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R.

A It is contended for the State that though· the said method was
adopted only for the purpose of disciplinary control, for the purpose
of recruitment, appointment and control the police ministerial staff
are controlled by Section 7 of the Police Act, 1862 and the Orissa
Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service
of Clerks and Assistants in the District Offices and· Offices of the
B ··Heads of Departments) Rules, 1963 would continue to operate. In
consequence, the ministerial staff appointed in the district offices are
different from the ministerial staff working in the heads of the
department and that, therefore, the same benefits or the scale of pay
etc. were not extended to the staff working in the district offices.
c Section 7 of the Act speaks of the appointment etc. are (sic.) subject
to Art. 311 of)the Constitution and the Rules made under the Act or
any other rules made in that behalf from time to time. When we
asked the counsel for the State to point out thus whether any separate
rules under section 7 were made or any resolution in exercise of the
powers under Section 7 was passed by the State adopting 1963 Rules
D as a part, for the purpose of appointment and administrative control
of the ministerial staff working in the district offices as well as in the
offices of the heads of the departments in the police department, it
was said that since this question was not canvassed nor argued in the
Tribunal, they did not have an occasion to look into the matter and_
E place the necessary material before this Court. Since this is the crucial
question that arises for decision in this case, the material is necessary.
Counsel seeks for and is granted four weeks' time to place the necessary
-
material on record."

It is in the context as above that this Court finally in its order dated
F November 28, 1995 recorded the following :

"Thereafter, the Government has placed before us the statutory
rules issued under proviso to Article 309 of Constitution, viz., the
Orissa District Police Ministerial Officers [Method of Recruitment
and Conditions of Service] Rules, 1995 [for short "the Rules"] ~hich
G came into force w.e.f. February 24, 1995. These Rules made a
demarcation between the ministerial staff working in the district offices ,
and those working in the offices of DIG, IG and DGP. The method
of recruitment and the nature of the conditions of service have been
enumerated thereunder.

H From these circumstance, it is contended for the appellant by Shri
SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY v. STATE (UMESH C. BANERJEE. J.] 983
Das, learned counsel that preceding February 24, 1995 there were no A
--+ statutory rules or administrative instructions regulating the recruitment,
transfer and posting of the 1ninisterial staff separately in the district
offices and the offices of DIG, IG and DGP respectively. On the
other hand, the evidence placed on record would clearly indicate that
the recruitment, posting etc. are interchangeable from the district B
offices to the State level offices referred to earlier. Therefore, they
are entitled to the parity of benefits of pay-scales and other
e1nolun1ents. We find force in the contention."

Incidentally, by reason of the order as aforesaid, a Writ Petition fried
by one Bhikari Charan Parida became thus infructuous and was dismissed as C
such.

The records depict that as against the order of this Court dated 28th
November, 1995 the State Government filed a Review Petition but the same
was dismissed and by reason whereof on 25th April, 1997, the State
Government issued Notification by way of implementation of the order of D
this Court dated 28th November, 1995. Subsequent thereto, an application for
modification of the order dated 28th November, 1995 and impleadment was
filed by some of the petitioners claiming to be affected by the aforesaid order
and some others moved the Orissa Administrative Tribunal on the ground
that the order is not binding on them. The records further depict that by an
order dated 13th January, 1998 this court converted the application for E
modification and impleadment to a Review Petition and by order dated 16th
April, 1998, the Review Petition was allowed and order dated 28th November,
1995 was recalled and so also the Writ Petition bearing No. 692 of 1993 was
restored. However, it has been clarified that the benefits granted pursuant to
the order dated 28th November, 1995 were not to be disturbed and as such F
the same were not disturbed. By reason of the aforesaid, the entire factual
edifice is now again thrown open and the matter comes up for further disposal
- it is this process which we referred to earlier as may be a deterrent factor
for the people to repose confidence in our justice delivery system.

In the order of restorting this Court has, however, been rather specific G
and on a limited question available for fresh adjudication before this Court.
For convenience sake paragraph 4 [ 1998] 6 SCC 176 at 179 entitled Ashok
Kumar Pattanaik and Ors. v. Stale of Orissa and Anr. of the order of
restortation is r.oted hereinbelow for its proper appreciation:

''4. Having given our anxious consideration to these rival contentions H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A we find that the decision rendered in Si.sir Kumar Mohanty v. State
of Orissa, [1996] 7 SCC 120 had not noticed the relevant rules to
which our attention was invited by the learned Senior Counsel for the
review petitioners. Unfortunately these rules do not seem to have
been pointed out to the Court while it passed the said order. Whether
these rules had any bearing on the ultimate decision or not is not a
B question for our consideration at this stage. However, we do find that
all relevant aspects of the matter which had a direct bearing on the
result of the civil appeal were not placed for consideration of the
Court when it decided the aforesaid civil appeal. On this short ground
and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy
c between the parties, we deem it fit to recall the order of this Court
in Sisir Kumar's case (supra) and restore the civil appeal to the file
of this court for a fresh decision on the limited question whether by
virtue of Government of Orissa resolution dated 7.9.1974 any fusion
of two erstwhile cadres of ministerial staff working in the offices of
DIG, !GP and DGP at headquarters and the ministerial staff working
D in the districts under the District Superintendents of Police was effected
till 24.2.1995 when the subsequent rules came into force treating
them as separate cadres and if so, what would be its consequences.
(emphasis supplied). It is made clear that so far as the question of
equal pay for equal work made available to the four appellants in the
E said appeal is concerned, the decision in the civil appeal in their
·favour will not be open for reconsideration as review proceeding on
th is aspect has already been rejected by our aforesaid order dated
13. I . 1998, meaning thereby, 1vhatever, monetGIJ' benefits on the
ground of equal pay for equal work are already made available to
the original four appellants in Sisir Kumar's case (supra) will not get
F adverse~}' affected even !f ultimately they lose in the civil appeal
restored to the file of this Court pursuant to the present order. It is
also made clear that even if ultimately the civil appeal of the original ~-
four appellants gets dismissed and if it is held that there was no
fi1sion of the two cadres of ministerial staff aforesaid and still on the
G ground of equal pay for equal work the original four appellants
remain entitled to the monetmy benefits as indicated hereinabove,
the right, if any, of other similarly situated ministerial staff employees
working in district establishments for being treated alike on the
question of equal pay of equal work despite belonging to a separate
cadre will obviously remain subject to scrutiny in any appropriate
H legal proceedings that such mi111:sterial staff members of the district
SISIR KUMAR MOl IANTY v. STATE [UMESH C. BANERJEE . .I.] 985

cadre 111ay think j;t to pursue against the State authorities, (En1phasis A
Supplied) We may also note that as the order in Sisir Kumar (supra)
will be recalled for the aforesaid limited purpose, the consequential
order dismissing Writ Petition (c) No. 692 of 1993 as infructuous on
account of the order passed in the civil appeal will also necessarily
have to be recalled as the writ petition was not decided on merits but B
was disposed of by the very same common order by which Civil
Appeal No. 2091 of 1990 was allowed."

Since, however, the order has already been re~alled, though li1nited in
its operation, we once again have to "start at the very beginning". The Tribunal
by its order dated I I th July, 1988 dismissed the petition, upon an interpretation C
of the resolut,ion dated 7th September, 1974. Before we proceed further in the
matter, we also deem it fit to refer to the resolution in extenso for its proper
appreciation:

Copy of Resolution No. PIB/1-43/73-pt-34227/F,, dated the 7th
September, 1974 of Government of Orissa, Home Department, D
Bhubaneswar:

The police ministerial Officers have been representing for some tin1e
for treating them on_ a footing different from their counterparts
employed in other departments of Government on the ground that
Govern1nent have in1posed certain restrictions on them in regard to E
their affiliation with any other association in the interest of Police
Administration and discipline and that they have been isolated from
other associations. Government, while according recognition, have
stipulated that the association of Police Ministerial Officers and their
Branches will not federation with any other association because of
-· r the very peculiar nature of their work. In emergencies relating to law F
and order situations and other emergencies like election, flood, natural
calamities etc., executive police Officers have to work over-time and
undertake arduous nature of work to fulfil their responsibilities. The
functioning of executive Police officers very much depends on the
functioning of the police n1inisterial officers who have to discharge G
their responsibilities under the same conditions. The nature of
discipline with which these ministerial officers of.the Police
Department have to abide is different from that of other ministerial
officers in the Srate.

2. After careful consideration of all these aspects Government have H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R.

A been pleased to decide that henceforward the Police Ministerial
Officers will be recruited under Section 7 of the Police Act-V of +--
1861 like the staff of the Police Radio Grid, P.M.T. Workstiop, State
Police Band etc. and the staff thus recruited along with the existing
police Ministerial Officers will form a separate cadre within the general
cadre of the Orissa Police and will be designated as Police Officers
B (Ministerial). They will be issued the certificate under Section 8 of
the said Act. The existing Police Ministerial Officers wi II have to
give option for their recruitment under Section 7 of the Police Act-
V of 1861 within a time to be stipulated by the Inspector General of
Police.
c 3. Since the duties assigned to them are different, they will have no
occasion to exercise the power and functions of the executive Police
Officers. They will, however, be subject to the Police discipline as far
as it will be applicable to their sphere of duties. They will not be
entitled to appointment or promotions to the executive posts and the
D present procedure regarding their appointment and promotion will
continue to operate.

- 4. Government have further decided that, on the recruitment of the
police Ministerial staff under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, they
along with the existing Police Ministerial Officer who will give option
E to be recruited under Section 7 of the Police Act, will be conferred
with the equivalent executive ranks and will get special pay as shown
against each ministerial rank in the schedule below:

Existing Corresponding Special pay at the rate
Ministerial ranks Police executive of 20% subject to the
F Ranks\ maximum as noted
Hereunder against
each.

2 3

Sr. Head Assistant H.A. Inspector Rs. 120/-PM
G
Special Branch Junior
Head· Assistant.

Grade I Asstt. Sr. Sub-Inspector Rs. 95/-PM
Sr. Auditor
H Stenographer Gr. I
SJSIR KUMAR MOHANTY v. STATE [UMESi'I C. BANERJEE, J.] 987

Grade II Astt. Sub-Inspector Rs. 80 PM A
Head Clerk, Jr. Auditor,
Gr.II Stenographer,
Store Clerk.
Accountant Gr.Ill . Sr.A.S.I. Rs. 70 PM
Asstt S.B. F.P.B. Clerk B
U.D. Typist
_,.. U.D. Diarist
U.D. Clerk, Asst. Librarian

L.D. Asstt. L.D. Typist A.S.I. Rs. 60 PM
L.D.-cum-Typist c
Dispatcher
L.D. Diarist Asstt.
Accountant L.D. Clerk,

Record Supplier Sr. Constable Rs. 50 PM
Daftry etc. D
of Similar Status

Peon
Literate Peon Constable Rs. 45 PM

5. Further, the Police Ministerial Officers on conferment of the E
executive ranks will be entitled to rent free accom1nodation or house•
rent allowance at the rate of I 0% of their pay in lieu thereof.

6. Since the sphere of duties of the Police Ministerial Officers is
different from the executive Police Officers, they will have no occasion
to claim the benefits excepting those mentioned in paragraph 4 and F
5 above, which are available to any other executive Police Officers
of the same cadre.

7. This will take effect from the 29th August, 74 when the proposal
was approved by the Cabinet.
G
xx xx xx
By Order of the Governor
Sd/- P. Misra
Secretary To Govt."
Adverting to the rival contentions, it has been a definite assertion for H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A the appellants herein that by virtue of the resolution noticed above, the police
ministerial officers serving under the IG/DGP Orissa constitute a separate
cadre within the general cadre of police officers and as such claim that police .
·ministerial officers holding the post of Junior Clerks in the district offices
besides being entitled for promotion in the district offices to the ranks of
Senior Clerk and Junior Accountant, wliich are posts equivalent to the rank
B of Assistant Sub-Inspectors arc entitled to promotion to the post of Senior
Assistants in the office of the IG/DIG and in the same manner Head Clerks
and Senior Assistants of district offices having the ranks of SI of police are
entitled to promotion to the rank of Section Officer in the rank of Inspector
of Police in the office of IG/DIG. It has ben contended that language itself
C having reference to paragraph 2 of the resolution cannot but depict a clear
intent to create single cadre and not two irrespective of the offices in which
they have to work and as such no artificial barrier can be introduced between
the selfsame officers. The submissions advanced no doubt require a serious
consideration as to the true interpretation of the resolution-no addition or
deletion can ever be said to be permissible as otherwise an order which
D happen to be bad at the beginning may through the process of affidavits gets
validated by additional grounds later brought out: As a proposition of law,
there cannot be any manner of doubt in regard thereto. The effect of the
resolution shall have to be judged on the basis of the document itself and no
other external aid is permissible. A careful scrutiny of paragraph 2 of the
E resolution dated 7th September, 1974 (as noticed hereinbefore) and in particular •
the user of the language along with "the existing police ministerial officers
will form a separate cadre within the general cadre of the Orissa Police and
will be designated as Police Officers (Ministerial)" makes the situation
abundantly clear as regards the creation of a separate cadre called "Police
Officers (Ministerial)." By and under the said clause, option have been
F provided in terms of Section 7 of the Police Act of 186 I, which reads as
below:
"7. Appointment, dismissal etc. of inferior officers-Subject to the
provision of Article 3 I I of the Constitution and to such rules as the
State Government may from time to time make under this Act, the
G Inspector-General, Deputy Inspectors-General, Assistant Inspectors-
General and DistriC:t Superintendents of Police may at any time dismiss,
suspend or reduce any police officer of the subordinate ranks whom
they shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty or
unfit for the same;
..,,. -
H or may award any one or more of the following punishments to
'
JI>-

SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY , .. STATE [UMESH C. BANERJEE, .1.l 989

any police officer of the subordinate ranks who shall discharge his A
duty in a careless or negligent manner, or who by any act his O'Nll
shall render himself unfit for the discharge thereof, namely:-

(a) fine to any amount not exceeding one month's pay;

(b) confine1nent to quarters for a tern1 not exceeding fifteen days, B
with or without punishtnent-drill, extra, guard, fatigue or other duty;

(c) deprivation of good conduct pay;
-~
(d) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument."

Having regard to the provisions of Section 7 of the Police Act read \Nith c
Clause 2 of the resolution, Clause 3 thereof becomes relevant and though
noticed above, we dee111 it fit to reproduce the same once again as below:

"3. Since the duties assigned to them are different, they will have no
occasion to exercise the power and functions of the executive Police
Officers. They will, however, be subject to the Police discipline as far D
as it will be applicable to their sphere of duties. They will not be
entitled to appointments or promotions to the executive posts and the
present procedure regarding their appointment and promotion will
continue tu operate."

Let us, however, at this juncture ·note the recording of the Tribunal's E
order apropos para 2 of.the resolution. In para 6 of the Tribunal's order it has
been recorded as below:

"6. On a careful reading of the Resolution we find that no doubt there
is 1nention in para 2 of the Resolution that 1ninisterial police officers
will constitute a separate cadre \Vithin the cadre of general Police and E
will be designated as Police Officers (Ministerial}, but, nowhere it
has been mentioned in the Resolution that the separate cadre of Police
Ministerial officers so formed will be a single cadre for all the officers
working in the Police Establishment irrespective of the offices and
levels in which they are or would happen to be working.
G
.......................................................................

-" In this context and in vielv of the specific duties assigned to then1 are
different they will have no occasion lo exercise the powers and
fimctions ofthe executive police officers. They will, however, be subject
lo !he Police discipline as }Gr as it lFill be applicable to their sphere B
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R.

A of duties. They will not be entitled to appointments or promotions to
the executive posts and the present procedure regarding their
appointment and promotion will continue to operate." (Emphasis ours),
It is clear that the Resolution does not create a single cadre for police
ministerial officers irrespective of the office/level in which they happen
to be working. It seems to us that the main purpose of mentioning in
B para 2 that the police ministerial officers will form a separate cadre
within the general cadre of the Orissa Police and will be designated
as Police Officers (Ministerial) was to distinguish them from the
executive police officers and as is clear from the mention in para 3
of the Resolution "since the duties assigned to them are different,
c they will have no occasion to exercise the powers and functions of
the executive Police Officers. They will, however, be subject to the
Police discipline as far as it will be applicable to their sphere of
duties. They will not be entitled to appointments or promotions to the
executive posts." As the position is well settled that while interpreting
statutes/Government orders they have to be read as a whole and
D construction given has to be a harmonious one, considering the
Resolution as a whole we are firmly of the view that the contention
of the petitioners that a single cadre for all police ministerial officers
irrespective of the office/level they were working had been created
under this Resolution cannot be accepted. Consequently, we also
E conclude that there is no force/merit in the contention ofthe petitioners
that they were entitled to be considered for promotion for posts
occurring in the higher ranks in the office of D.I. G.11. G.ID. G. P. after
this Resolution was issued. (Emphasis Supplied)

Significantly, however, the entire police administration in the State of
F Orissa stands governed by the Orissa Police Manual, which in effect maintains
two classes of ministerial staff to wit, in the office of the DG/IG of Police
and in districts in the office of the Superintendent of Police. The educational
qualifications required and the method of recruitment are different as regards
the appointment in the aforesaid posts. The same reads as below:

G "(a) Educational Qualification-

Except with the specific orders of Government in the Home
Department no person shall be appointed- .,. -.
(i) as a lower division assistant in the Secretariat unless he holds
H as degree of a recognised University in Arts, Science or Commerce;
/

SISIR KUMAR MOIJANTY v. s·1 i\llo llJMESH c. BANERJEE. J.J 991

._-'t (ii) as a lower division assistant in the office of Heads of A
Departments unless he has passed the Intermediate Examination of a
recognised University in Arts, Science or Co1nmerce.

(iii) as a clerk in the district offices unless he has passed the
Matriculation Exan1ination or its equivalent fro1n a recognised
.,
University. B
(b) Methods of recruitment-
-~
Recruit111ent shall be 111ade by tneans of co1npetitive exa1nination
which shall be separate for the Secretariat. Offices of Heads of
Depart111ents and district offices. The exan1ination for the Secretariat
shall be conducted by the Public Service Commission. that for the
c
offices of Heads of Departments by a Board of Examiners to be
appointed by Government in the Home Department and that for district
offices by the Divisional Commissioner concerned. The Board of
Examiners referred to above shall ordinarily consist of a Secretary to

- .....
Government as President, the Principal of a College and the Under
Secretary to GovE:rntnent in the Honie Department as 1nen1bers. The
Under Secretary to Government in the Home Department shall be the
ex-officio Secretary to the Board."
D

During the course of hearing the appellants were rather vocal as regards
the transfer of the staff of the district offices to that of the DG/IG of Police- E
the san1e, however, stands negated by the State-respondents with a positives
asse11ion that there has not even been a single case of transfer fro1n the
district to the IG ·s office or vice-versa ever-since the fonnation of the police
force in the State of Orissa .
. r F
It is also a redee111ing feature to know that presently hvo sets of

- Recruitment Rules for ministerial staff to the office of the DG/IG of Police
as well as to the district offices framed under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution are available for proper guidance. Whereas the Orissa Ministerial
Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Assistants and
Section Officers in the Offices of the Heads of Department) Rules. 1994 G
govern the office of the DG/IG of Police, the Orissa District Police Ministerial
Officers (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995

- ~
govern the area of district offices.

In fine. therefore. it appears that prior to the fran1ing of the aforesaid
recruit111cnt rules, the field \Vas covered under executive instructions and by H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R.

A reason of the methodology of recruitment and the qualifications being different
for appointment for the two categories mentioned above, the distinction thus
between the two sets uf officers have always been maintained.

The learned advocate for the State further drew our attention, during
the course of hearing, as regards the pay scales of the two categories but in
B the view we have taken is noticed hereinbefore, we do not deem it fit to
further dilate thereon. Suffice it to note that the same also lends credence to
the submissions of the State.

In that view of the matter, question of fusion of two erstwhile cadres
"-·
of ministerial staff at the DG/IG of Police and in the districts does not and
c cannot arise and the subsequent framing of Rules under Article 309 lends
;.;redence to such an observation.

On the wake of the aforesaid, the order of the Tribunal cannot be
faulted in any way. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
D The limited question as raised by this Court while passing the order of
restoration (as noticed above) is thus answered in the affinnative to the effect
that there has been no fusion at any point of time even prior to the enactment
of Rules coming into force from 24th February, 1995. As regards the
consequence, be it, however, noted that by reason of specific direction of this
E Court that even if the appellants herein ultimately lose in the civil appeal and
it is held that there was no fusion of the two cadres of ministerial staff but
still on the ground of equal pay for equal work remain entitled to the monetary
benefits as indicated in the judgment [1998] 6 sec 176: paragraph 4

The aforesaid direction obviously has drawn inspiration from the earlier
F judgment of this Court in [1996] 7 sec 120. We may be having a different

-
view of the matter of restoration of an appeal but by reason of a specific
decision of this Court to the effect as noticed above and the factum of judicial
precedents being a valued consideration in our justice delivery system, we do
not wish to depart therefrom and as such the monetary benefits, even after
G the dismissal of the appeal, as is otherwise available to the appellants in
terms of the earlier judgment be made available so as to comply with the
terms of the order.

Incidentally, further leave has also been granted for initiation of further
legal proceedings in the order of restoration as regards the ministerial staff
H working in the district establishment for being treated alike on the question
SISIR KUMAR MOI-IANTY v. STATE [UMESI-1 C. BANERJEE, J.]' 993
__,.. of equal pay for equal work despite belonging to a separate cadre : We are, A
)lowever, not expressing any opinion in that regard neither any observation
made hereinbefore in this judgment should be taken to mean expression of
any opinion in that regard. '

Re: WP (c) No.692 of 1993
B
In the view as has been expressed in this judgment, Writ Petition (c)
No. 692 of I 993 stands dismissed without, however, any order as to costs.

This order of dismissal, however, shall also be subject to the liberty as
granted by this court earlier and noticed hereinbefore. There shall, however,
be no order as to costs.

T.N.A. Appeal and Petition dismissed .

• I'

..