Orissa High Court
M/S Odisha Power Transmission vs P. Satyanarayan Patro And Another on 2 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1 of 2020
M/s Odisha Power Transmission .... Appellant
Corporation Limited
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
P. Satyanarayan Patro and another .... Respondents
Mr. R. Acharya, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
02.12.2021
Order No.
07. 1. The present appeal is directed against an order dated 24th June
2019 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.(C)
No.10627 of 2005 filed by Respondent No.1. By the said order,
the learned Single Judge quashed the decision dated 1st August
2005 passed by the present Appellant in purported compliance
with the earlier order dated 9th May 2005 by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.10899 of 2004 in the matter of grant of
annual increments, stagnation increment. Learned Single Judge
has in the impugned order directed the present Appellant to
consider the case of Respondent No.1 afresh in light of an Office
Order dated 30th July 1997 issued by the predecessor in interest of
the present Appellant i.e. Gird Corporation of Odisha Limited
(GRIDCO).
2. In the present appeal, while directing notice to be issued on 26th
November 2020, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge
was stayed.
3. The background facts are that Respondent No.1 initially joined
in the erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board (OSEB) as a Junior
Engineer (Electrical) on 13th January, 1975.
4. Pursuant to the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 (OER Act)
and the Transfer Scheme Rules, 1996, the assets, liabilities,
proceedings and personnel of OSEB were transferred and vested
with GRIDCO with effect from 1st April, 1996.
5. While serving in GRIDCO, Respondent No.1 was promoted as
Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 2nd April, 2002. He ultimately
superannuated on 31st March, 2003.
6. Initially on account of the initiation of a departmental
proceeding against him, Respondent No.1 was only allowed
provisional pension. Subsequently, on finalization of the
departmental proceedings, an order was passed on 18th March
2005 reducing his pension by 20% permanently.
7. It may be mentioned that shortly prior to Respondent No.1
filing the present W.P.(C) No.10627 of 2005, two developments
took place. Respondent No.1 initially filed W.P.(C) No.10899 of
2004 which stood disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 9th
May 2005 allowing Respondent No.1 to make a representation.
Upon consideration, an order was passed on 1st August 2005 by
the Appellant rejecting the representation. The second
development was that by virtue of the Orissa Electricity Reform
(Transfer of Transmission and Related Activities) Scheme, 2005,
the transmission undertaking of GRIDCO including its assets,
proceedings and personnel stood vested with the present Appellant
i.e. Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited (OPTCL)
with effect from 9th June, 2005.
8. W.P.(C) No.10627 of 2005 was in fact filed after the above
change took place. However, for reasons not explained, only
GRIDCO was made a party to the writ petition and not the present
Appellant viz., OPTCL.
9. A counter affidavit was nevertheless filed on behalf of the
Opposite Parties by OPTCL in which the above change was
adverted to. In the counter affidavit it was stated that "as the
successor of GRIDCO in respect of the transmission of electricity,
M/s. OPTCL files this counter affidavit."
10. The main plank of the submission by Respondent No.1 before
learned Single Judge was that his pay scale ought to have been
fixed in terms of the notification dated 30th July 1997 which
permitted three increments. However, as is evident from the
counter affidavit filed by OPTCL, the HR Committee of GRIDCO
on 6th January 1999 took a decision to allow stagnation increment
up to a maximum two. Consequently, the aforementioned order
dated 1st August 2005 was passed consistent with the said HR
Committee resolution.
11. It appears that the writ petition was permitted to be amended to
challenge the aforementioned office order dated 1st August 2005
by an order dated 11th January 2016 in Misc. Case No.21110 of
2015.
12. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties. It is
sought to be contended on behalf of Respondent No.1 that
Opposite Parties were obliged to fix the annual increments
allowances etc strictly in terms of the Office Order dated 30th July
1997 and therefore the learned Single Judge was right in setting
aside the order dated 1st August 2005.
13. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the Appellant, the above HR Committee resolution
dated 6th January, 1999 limiting the annual increments to two was
not challenged by Respondent No.1 in the writ petition. What was
challenged by way of amendment was only the decision dated 1st
August, 2005. In fact, no reason has been given by learned Single
Judge for allowing the prayer of Respondent No.1. In other words,
the learned Single Judge did not deal with the HR Committee
resolution although this was squarely pleaded by the present
Appellant in the counter affidavit filed by it in response to the writ
petition.
14. Learned Single Judge has in one paragraph simply held that
the order dated 1st August 2005 was not "in consonance with the
Office Order dated 30.07.1997 of GRIDCO". There is no
reasoning whatsoever contained in the judgment to show why the
learned Single Judge arrived at such conclusion.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of
the view that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge
overlooked the fact that the HR Committee of GRIDCO passed a
resolution on 6th January 1999, much after the earlier notification
dated 30th July 1997, limiting the benefits to two increments.
Consequently, the learned Single Judge was in an error in
quashing the said decision dated 1st August, 2005. There was no
occasion for any mandamus to be issued to the present Appellant
to consider the case of Respondent No.1 afresh in light of the
Office Order dated 30th July, 1997. The impugned order of the
learned Single Judge is accordingly set aside and the writ appeal is
allowed. But, in the circumstances no order as to costs.
16. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Guin
