Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BASUDEV PATI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This special leave petition is filed against the order
of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack passed on
December 6, 1996, in Transfer Application No.610/87.
Admittedly, the petitioner, while working as Lecturer,
had appeared in competitive examination and was selected to
the Orissa Administrative Service. As Orissa Administrative
Service, Class-II, his scale of pay was Rs.525-1150/-.
Earlier, also when he worked as Lecturer, the scale of pay
was Rs.525-1150/- which was subsequently revised by the
University Grants Commission w.e.f. April 1, 1974 to Rs.700-
1600/-. In that pay scale, his pay fixed at Rs.780. He was
paid arrears of salary with retrospective effect from
1.1.1974. After he was selected and appointed to the Orissa
Administrative Service, he sought protection of his last
drawn pay and his upgraded fitment in the pay scale in the
Orissa Administrative Service. The Tribunal has rejected the
claim. Thus this special leave petition.
Shri Janaranjan Das, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, contends that since the petitioner had been
given the pay scale with retrospective effect from 1.1.1974,
on his appointment to the Orissa Administrative Service, his
last drawn pay need to be protected. As per the instructions
of the Accountant General, his pay is entitled to be fixed
at Rs.780/- in the pay scale in the service of Orissa
Administrative Service. We find no force in the contention.
The service as a Lecturer is entirely different from the
service of the Orissa Administrative Service. Merely because
he happened to work earlier as a Lecture and in the same pay
scale which was subsequently revised, he cannot be permitted
to have the benefit of U.G.C. scale in the Administrative
Service and fitment in the pay-scale on that basis. That
would create imbalance and gross infraction and distortion
and would result in flood of claims of similarly situated
persons under Article 39(d) of the Consitution. Under these
circumstances, such a course cannot be permitted to be
adopted.
The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2