SRI SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 756 · Decided: 28-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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-
c Lower Division Clerks-Ministerial staff working in Disaict Offices-Held 
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 
F 
working in the Head Offices. 
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-
B 
ces, 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 
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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
for consideration before this Court, after hearing the counsel at length, by 
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 
police m
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.