SHYAMA CHARAN DASH AND ORS. versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 899 · Decided: 11-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
SHY AMA CHARAN DASH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF ORIS SA AND ANR. 
MARCH 11, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Orissa Industries Service Rules, 1985; Rule 7(1) with amendments: 
Issuance of notification by State Government merging certain categories of C 
posts as Industries Promotion Officers equivalent to Industrial Supervisors-
Deletion by amendment the provision of pay scale rendering officers working 
in the lower scale of pay to be eligible for promotion-Challenge to--Rejected 
by the Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the merger order remained 
unchallenged-Thus, on ground of equity IPOs. have been treated on par with D 
Industrial Supervisors irrespective of having different scale of pay-On appeal, 
Held: Since State Government issued merger notification and effected 
amendments in the promotion rules with the object to do substantial justice to 
all categories of posts equated for the purpose of Rule 7, the Government 
acted reasonably-Such acts of the Government in pursuance of its policy and 
in exercise of its statutory power could not be challenged merely on the E 
ground thai due to enlargement of chance of promotion of one category of 
officers, chance of other category officers in the same feeder cadre become 
· diminished. 
State of Orissa, in exercise of its powers under Rule 7(1) of the Orissa 
Industries Service Rules, issued a notification merging certain categories F 
of posts into viz. the Industries Promotion Officers equivalent to Industrial 
Supervisors and later by amending Rule 7(1) it deleted the provision of 
requisite scale of pay of officers in the feeder cadre. Thereby some of the 
ineligible officers in the feeder cadre became eligible for promotion. The 
amendments to the rule was challenged by the appellant-Supervisors which G 
was rejected by the Administrative Tribunal. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that the Government could not 
equate unequals by making IPOs working in the different grades with 
different pay .scale, on par with Industrial Supervisors working at higher 
899 
H 
900 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A grade with higher pay scale; and that prospects of promotion of Industrial 
Supervisors would be denied by such acts of the Government and would 
be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 
Dismissing the appeal, th1~ Court 
B 
HELD: 1. The challenge 1to the order of the Tribunal rejecting the 
challenge made by the appellants, do not merit acceptance. Thus, no 
genuine or serious objection could be either reasonably or lawfully taken 
to the move to enable all the Industries Promotion Officers also becoming 
eligible for promotion to Class·-11 posts. So far as Industries Promotion 
C Officers among themselves am concerned, the difference in pay scale 
among them is due to the differences based on the initial feeder category 
pay and not due to any intrinsic obligation. As long as the IPOs, as a 
category, are rendered eligible even from 1986 and that is not challenged, 
the differences, if any, existing and based on the scales of pay among them, 
when resolved to be done away with in the undoubted exercise of its power 
D by the State, as a matter of policy, cannot be legitimately challenged by 
the appellants merely because clue to the enlargement of the horizon of 
consideration resulting therefrom, the chances of consideration for 
promotion of Industrial Super11isors become diminished. The reasons, 
which weighed with the State Government in doing so, are found to be 
E genuine, real and substantive a111d meant to do substantial justice to all 
categories or grade of posts equated for purposes of Rule 7 of the Rules. 
The fact that in different procee·dings where claim for identical scales of 
pay came to be contested by the Government or rejected by the Tribunal, 
is no justification to countenance the claim of the appellants in these 
proceedings inasmuch as the criteria to be applied in dealing with such 
F claims are totally different or, at any rate, may be one on Iy among several 
requirements to be satisfied. 190.3-A; 907-A-EI 
G 
Union of India and Ors. v. N. Y. Apte and Ors., ( 1995( 6 SCC 741] and 
Md Usman and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., 1(1971) 2 SCC 
188), relied on. 
Y. V. RangC'iah qnd Ors. etc. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors., (1983] 3 
SCC 284; R.S. Ajara and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (19971 3 SCC 
641]; Chairman, Rai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.