THE STATE OF ODISHA vs. SATYA NARAYAN BEHURA

1 NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1851  OF 2020 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.22181 OF 2019] STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.          ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SRI SATYA NARAYAN BEHURA                   …RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.1852  OF 2020, [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.22184 OF 2019] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1853    OF 2020, [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.22185 OF 2019] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1854   OF 2020, [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.22186 OF 2019] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1855    OF 2020, [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.20571 OF 2019] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1856   OF 2020, [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.20100 OF 2019] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1857    OF 2020, [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.20420 OF 2019] CIVIL APPEAL NO.1858   OF 2020, [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.320 OF 2020] Signature Not Verified AND Digitally signed by INDU MARWAH Date: 2020.02.28 18:52:58 IST Reason: CIVIL APPEAL NO.1859   OF 2020, [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] No.5389/2020         Dy. NO.4351 OF 2020] 2 J U D G M E N T Vineet Saran, J. Leave granted. 2. The facts in all the appeals are similar, hence for the purpose of convenience, the Civil Appeal No.1851 of 2020, arising out of SLP(C) No.22181 of 2019, is being treated as the lead appeal and its facts are being dealt with and considered hereunder. 3. The respondent joined as an Assistant Conservator of Forest   (ACF),   Grade­B   on   06.11.1990,   in   the   office   of   the Divisional Forest Officer, Ghumsur North Division, Bhanjanagar, Odisha.  At the relevant time,   Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 (for short, ‘ORSP Rules, 1998’) were in force. Rule 8 of the said   Rules   provided   for   Time   Bound   Advancement   (for   short “TBA”) scales to be given on completion of 15 years and 25 years of service, which was in case the employees who had not availed such benefit of promotion or TBA scales. The Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules,2008 (for short, ‘ORSP Rules,   2008’)   were   notified,   which   came   into   force   w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Rule 14 provided for Assured Career Progression (for short,   ‘ACP’)   which   could   be   availed   in   three   stages   i.e.   on completion of 15 years, 25 years and 30 years of service in their 3 original post or grade and such benefit of ACP was to be given only after screening each and every case by the Screening Committee to be constituted by the Department.   Then,   on  06.02.2013,   Government  of   Orissa promulgated the Revised Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short, ‘RACP Scheme’) for State Government employees, which was given effect from   01.01.2013.     According   to   the   same,   three   financial upgradations were to be accorded on completion of 10 years, 20 years and 30 years of service in a single cadre, which was in the absence of any promotion. Thereafter, on 23.02.2016, an Office Memorandum was issued by the Government of Orissa, which was   a   clarification   to   the   effect   that   whenever   there   is   an upgradation and the financial factor is taken into account, the same would fulfil the spirit of the RACP Scheme.  4. Considering the fact that the respondent had already availed the benefits of the Rules and the Scheme, by an Order dated 07.08.2016, it was directed that the financial upgradation sanctioned to the respondent was to be withdrawn, as excess payment had been made to him, and a formal Order to this effect was issued on 29.08.2016. 4 5. The respondent claims that the upgradation and other benefits given to the respondent were well within the provision of the Rules and the RACP Scheme and as such he filed an O.A. No.762   of   2017   before   the   State   Administrative   Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) with the following prayers: “i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to   quash   the   impugned   order   vide No.16046 dated 29.08.2016, and ii)     The   Hon’ble   Tribunal   further   be pleased   to   quash   the   impugned   O.M. dated   23.02.2016,   as   the   same   is contrary   to   the   Resolution   dated 06.02.2013 and is not applicable to the applicant   and   further   be   pleased   to declare that the order dated 24.02.2015 has been issued rightly.”   By its Order dated 16.11.2017, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. of the respondent (along with other connected O.As), the operative portion of which is reproduced below:  “…….The   Govt.   of   Orissa,   Finance Department   office   Memorandum   dt. 23.2.2016   on   the   basis   of   which   the impugned order dt. 29.8.2016 has been passed   is   not   tenable   because   the Finance   Department   Office Memorandum   dt.   23.2.2016   is   not   in consonance with the RACP scheme i.e. resolution   dt.   6.2.2013   and   therefore, the resolution is to be followed and not the Office Memorandum dt. 23.2.2016. When   the   benefit   of   grade   pay   of Rs.7600/­   has   been   granted   to   the 5 applicants after completion of 20 years nd of   service   as   2   up­gradation   w.e.f. 1.2.2013 by the order passed in 2015 in terms of the resolution dt. 6.2.2013, the same cannot be withdrawn merely on the basis of subsequent clarification given by the Finance Department office Memorandum dt. 23.2.2016. Hence, all the O.As are allowed. The   impugned   order   dt.   29.8.2016 stands   quashed.     The   applicants   be allowed to continue in the grade pay of nd Rs.7600/­   towards   2   up­gradation under RACPs in P.B.­3 in the scale of pay Rs.15600/­ to Rs.39100/­.”  6. Challenging the same, the Appellant, State of Orissa filed   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.19368   of   2018,   which   has   been dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2019.  Hence, this Appeal by the State of Orissa. 7. The   contention   of   Ms.   V.   Mohana,   learned   Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, State of Orissa, is that the respondent, on completion of 15 years of service, was allowed Time Bound Advancement (TBA) scale on 10.11.2005 under the ORSP   Rules,   1998.     Thereafter,   on   13.10.2009   the   second upgradation,   amounting   to   promotion,   was   accorded   to   the respondent, by which the respondent was accorded Group­A Junior Branch status to ACF (entry grade post).   Then,  on 6 05.06.2010, a third promotion by way of pay upgradation was accorded   to   the   respondent,   whereby   the   respondent   was promoted   to   OFS   (Group­A)   Senior   Branch.     It   has   been contended that the RACP Scheme was akin to the Time Bound Advancement (TBA) scale and as such the benefit accorded to the respondent on 10.11.2005 was the first benefit given and, thereafter,   the   second   and   third   benefits   were   given   on 13.10.2009   and   05.06.2010   and,   thus,   three   benefits   were given to the respondent within 20 years of his service, whereas according to the RACP Scheme, he would be entitled to only two   such   benefits.     It   was   contended   that   the   subsequent benefit given on 24.02.2015, by which the pay scale of the respondent was raised, was a mistake of the Department and, in any case, by aforesaid Order dated 24.02.2015 itself, it was specified that   “DDO concerned may be instructed to obtain an undertaking from the  employee while availing RACP benefits that   the   excess   payments   if   any   detected   in   future   will   be recovered   from  him   or  will   be   adjusted   from  the   pensionary benefits of the employees”.   Ms.   Mohana,   thus,   submitted   that   the   Office Memorandum dated 23.02.2016 was perfectly justified as an 7 upgradation given earlier (whereby financial benefit was given to the respondent) fulfilled the spirit of the RACP Scheme.  It was, thus, urged that the Order dated 07.08.2016, as well as the consequent Order dated 29.08.2016, were fully justified and in accordance with the Rules as well as the RACP Scheme and   that   the   benefit   accorded   to   the   respondent   by   the Tribunal was not justified in law and the Order of the Tribunal was liable to be quashed. In support of her submission, learned Senior Counsel relied on the decisions of this Court rendered in (1995) 4 SCC 462,  Union of India vs S. S. Ranade  State of Rajasthan vs Fateh Chand Soni  (1996) 1 SCC 562,  Bharat Sanchar   Nigam   Limited   vs   R.   Santhakumari   Velusamy (2011)   9   SCC   510,   Hukum   Chand   Gupta   vs   Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research  (2012) 12 SCC   666   and   Secretary,   Government   (NCT   of   Delhi)   vs Grade­I Dass Officers’ Association  (2014) 13 SCC 296.  Per contra, Shri Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the   respondent   herein   (petitioner   before   the   Tribunal),   has submitted that in 20 years of service of the respondent, the respondent has been given only one upgradation/promotion on 8 05.06.2010.  According to the learned Senior Counsel, the TBA accorded on 10.11.2005 was not to be counted, as the same was not under the RACP Scheme.  The upgradation accorded on 13.10.2009 was also not specifically for the respondent but an upgradation in general, which could also not be said to be a benefit under the RACP Scheme, and as such, the first benefit given under the Scheme was only on 05.06.2010.  It was urged that   in   such   view   of   the   matter,   the   benefit   given   on 24.02.2015 was the second benefit under the RACP Scheme, and   was   on   completion   of   20   years   of   service,   which   was perfectly justified in law and the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim of the respondent.  8. Learned Counsel for the parties have relied on certain other   circulars   and   clarifications   given   by   the   Finance Department of the Government of Orissa, which were not part of the record, either before the Tribunal or the High Court. Learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that since they are Government documents, the same can be taken on record. Learned Counsel for both the parties have also accepted the fact   that   the   High   Court   has   not   given   any   reason   for 9 dismissing the Writ Petition and only quoted the paragraph 7 of the   Order   of   the   Tribunal   and   dismissed   the   Writ   Petition, without giving any finding of its own. In our considered view, the contentions, as raised by 9. the Counsel for the  parties, ought to have been taken into account, while passing the judgment in the Writ Petition, which has not been done so in the present case. As such, we are of the opinion that the matter should be remanded to the High Court for deciding the Writ Petition afresh, in accordance with law and after dealing with all the contentions raised by the parties. 10.   Accordingly, we allow these appeals and remand the matter to the High Court to decide the Writ Petitions afresh, after considering the various contentions raised by the parties. The   appellants   herein   are   granted   liberty   to   file   additional affidavits in the Writ Petitions within four weeks from the date the Writ Petitions before the High Court stands revived.   The respondent shall have three weeks thereafter to file additional counter affidavits.  Rejoinders, if any, may be filed within two 10 weeks thereafter.  The High Court shall, thereafter, make every endeavour   to   decide   the   Writ   Petitions   as   expeditiously   as possible, preferably within six months from the filing of the affidavits as indicated above.   No orders as to costs.   ………………………………..J                                          (UDAY UMESH LALIT) ………………………………..J                                  (VINEET SARAN) New Delhi Dated: February 28, 2020.