SRI SISIR KUMAR MOHANTYversusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

A                        SRI SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY
                                      v.
                         STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

                              NOVEMBER 28, 1995

B              [K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

          Service Law:

           Claim for parity in pay scales-State of Oirssa-Police Department-
    Lower Division Clerks-Ministerial staff working in Disaict Offices-Held
c   entitled to pwity with staff working in Head Offices-Held Resolution of
                                                                                          ~-
    Govemment of Orissa makes no distinction between staff working in District ·
    Headquarters and Head Offices.

          17ie 01issa District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment
D and Conditions of Sovice) Rules, 199~Applicability of.
          Police Ac~ 1862: Section 7-Applicability of.

           The Appellants are members of the Ministerial staff in the Police
    Department of Orissa working as Lower Division Clerks in the offices of
E   Superintendent of Police and other District Offices. Their claim for parity
    of pay scales and other benefits with the Ministerial staff working in the
    offices of D.I.G., I.G. or D.G.l'. was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground
    that they constitute a separate cadre and the ministerial staff working in      ,..
    the District Head-quarters could not be considered on par with the staff
    working in the Head Offices.
F
           In appeal to this Court it was contended for the respondent State
    that the Resolution of Government of Orissa dated September 7, 1974 and
    further proceedings thereof clearly make distinction between ministerial
    staff working in the District Headquarters and the ministerial staff work-
G   ing in the Head offices. The respondents' reliance on the Orissa District
    Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of
    Service) Rules, 1995 was disputed by the appellants.

          Allowing the appeal, this Court

H         HELD : The appellants are entitled to the benefits of the Resolution            ~


                                     756
                         S.K. MOHANTY v. STATE                            757

dated September 7, 1974. A reading of the said Resolution clearly indicates      A
the intention that the ministerial staff is different from the executive staff
of the Police Department. There is no further sub-division amongst the
ministerial staff working in the district head-quarters and those working
in the head offices, viz. DIG, IG and DGP offices. Under these circumstan-
ces, the appellants are entitled to the parity of the treatment with the
                                                                                 B
ministerial staff working in the office of DIG. IG and DGP. Since the
Orissa District Police Ministerial Officers, (Method of Recruitment and
Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995 have come into force prospectively, viz.
from February 24, 1995 whatever conditions prevailing preceeding that
date would continue to operate and be applicable to them and the condi-
tions in respect of anyone recruited under the Rules will be governed by         C
the Rules separately. [759-G-H; 760-A-B]

     CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No. 2091 of 1990.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.88 of the Orissa Ad-                D
ministrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in T.A. No. 819/87 Arising out of
O.J.C. No. 1215 of 1984.

                                    With

      Writ Petition (C) No. 692 of 1993.                                         E

      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

      J.R. Das for the Appellant/Petitioners.

      V.A. Mohta and P.N. Misra for the Respondents.                             F

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

CA. No. 2091/90

      This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated July 11, 1988 G
made by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar in T.A. No.
819 of 1987 (OJC 1215/84). The appellants are members of ministerial staff
in the Police Department of Orissa working as Lower Division Clerks in
the Offices of the Superintendent of Police and other district offices. They
claimed parity of pay-scales and other benefits with the ministerial staff H
    758                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A working in the offices of DIG, IG or DGP at the headquarters. The relief
    was denied by the Tribunal on the ground that they constitute separate
    cadre and, therefore, the ministerial staff working in the district head-
    quarters could not be considered to be on par with the staff working in the
    offices of DIG, IG or DGP, as the case may be. When the matter came up
    for consideration before this Court, after hearing the counsel at length, by
B
    order dated September 7, 1994 this Court directed as 'under :

            "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
c           police ministerial officers were treated as a whole unit, though they
            had earlier formed part of separate cadres and were given the
            benefits of special pay, rent free accommodation, house rent al-
            lowance 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
D
            effected in the office order No. 617-Administration, dated May 4,
            1981 in which certain staff were inter-transferred from DPO Office
            to DIG SR etc.

                  It is contended for the State that though the said method was
E            adopted only for the purpose of disciplinary control, for the pur-
             pose 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
F            Offices of the 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:·Histrict offices. Section 7 of the Act speaks of the appointment
G            ett. Are (sic) subject to Art. 311 of the Constitution and the Rules
           . :fliade 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 to us whether any separate rules under Section 7 were made
             or any resolution in exercise of the powers under Section 7 was
H            passed by the State adopting 1963 Rules as a part, for the purpose
                         S.K. MOHANTY v. STATE                             759

        of appointment and administrative control of the ministerial staff A
        working in the district offices as well as in tl,1e 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 place the
        necessary material before this Court. Since this is the crucial B
        question that arises for decision in this case, the material is neces-
        sary. Counsels eeks for and is granted four weeks' time to place
        the necessary material on record."

       Thereafter, the Government has placed before us the statutory rules
issued under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, viz., the Orissa C
District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment and Condi-
tions of Service) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules") which 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 D
of the conditions of service have been enumerated thereunder.

      From these circumstances, it is contended for the appellant by Shri
Das, learned counsel that preceding February 24, 1995 there were no
statutory rules or administrative instructions regulating the recruitment,
transfer and posting of the ministerial staff separately in the district offices   E
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 inter-changeable from the district offices to the State level
offices referred to earlier. Therefore, they are entitled to the parity of
benefits of pay-scales and other emoluments. We find force in the conten-          p
tion.

      Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel for the respondents contended
that the resolution of September 7, 1974 and further proceedings of 1984
clearly indicate that they made a distinction between the ministerial staff
working in the district headquarters and the ministerial staff working in the G
head offices, viz., DIG, IG- and DGP offices, and that, therefore, the
appellant cannot claim parity. We find no force in the contention. A
reading of the resolution dated September 7, 1984 would clearly show and
also indicates the intention that the ministerial staff is different from the
executive staff of the Police Department. There is not further sub-division H
    760                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A amongst the ministerial staff working in the district head-quarters and
    those working in the head offices, viz., DIG, IG and DGP offices. Under
    these circumstances, the appellants are entitled to the parity of the treat-
    ment with the ministerial staff working in the office of DIG, IG and DGP.
    Since the Rules have come into force prospectively, viz., from February 24,
    1995, whatever conditions prevailing preceding that date would continue
B
    to operate and be applicable to them and the conditions in respect of
    anyone recruited, under the Rules will be governed by the Rules separately.

          Thus considered, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the
    benefits of the resolution dated September 7, 1974. The appeal is accord-
C   ingly allowed to the above extent. No costs.

    W.P. (C) No. 692/93

          The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

    T.N.A.                              Appeal allowed and petition dismissed.