http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SRI SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7) 120        JT 1995 (9)   121  1995 SCALE  (6)771

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH               WRIT PETITION [C] NO.692 OF 1993 Bhikari Charan Parida & Ors. v State of Orissa & Anr.                          O R D E R C.A. No.2091/90      This appeal  by special  leave arises  from  the  order dated July  11,  1988  made  by  the  Orissa  Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in T.A. No.819 of 19878 [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  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 headquarters  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 order dated September 7, 1994 this Court directed as under :           Shri Santosh  Hedge, 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 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      allowance although  as a  common  cadre,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    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-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 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      Recruitment and Conditions of Service of      Clerks and  Assistants in  the  District      Offices and  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 district offices. 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 to  us 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 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 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."      Thereafter, the  Government has  placed before  us  the statutory rules  issued under  proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, viz.,  the Orissa  District Police Ministerial Officers [Method  or Recruitment  and Conditions 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 of the conditions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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 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 contention.      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 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  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 circumstances, the  appellants are entitled to the parity of the treatment  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 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 accordingly  allowed to  the  above extent. No costs. W.P. [C] No.692/93 ------------------      The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.