Orissa High Court
Soudamni Acharya vs State Of Odisha And Others on 14 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31563 of 2011
Soudamni Acharya .... Petitioner
Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 14.12.2021
03. 1. On the basis of no work no pay, the Odisha Administrative
Tribunal (OAT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (OAT) has in the
impugned order declined to grant the Petitioner the relief of
payment of differential salary for the period during which she was
deprived of promotion as Headmaster. However, the OAT has
allowed notional promotion of the Petitioner as Headmaster from
15th July, 1997 for the purpose of seniority, increment and
pensionary benefits.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submits that he had placed before the OAT written submissions
referring to as many as five judgments of the Supreme Court
which were in favour of the Petitioner and which have not been
considered by the OAT. Before this Court, Mr. Mohanty has
placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh
Kumar v. Union of India (2015) 14 SCC 335 which appears to be
holding that the principle of no work no pay will not apply when
the employee is deprived of the promotion for no fault of hers.
3. However, the OAT has in the impugned order referred to
another judgment of the Supreme Court of India in B.M. Jha v.
Union of India (2008) 2 SCC (L & S) 399 which appears to hold
the contrary view. Mr. Mohanty confirms that the said judgment in
B.M. Jha (supra) was also by a coordinate Bench of two learned
Judges of the Supreme Court. It is seen that Ramesh Kumar
(supra) which was a judgment by two learned Judges of the
Supreme Court of India does not refer to B.M. Jha (supra) also by
a coordinate Bench of the same Bench strength. Mr. Mohanty then
refers to the fact that B.M. Jha (supra) itself does not refer to the
earlier judgments of the Supreme Court of Coordinate Bench
strength. The net result is there are conflicting orders of the
Supreme Court of the same Bench strength which remain to be
reconciled.
4. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is not inclined to
accept the plea of Mr. Mohanty that the matter should be remanded
to the learned Single Judge (since the OAT has been abolished in
the meantime) for a fresh hearing. For one, the problem of
reconciling conflicting judgments of the Supreme Court would
persist even before the learned Single Judge and this would only
result in further difficulties for the Petitioner. Secondly, the
Petitioner has long since superannuated and the effort to litigate
further will not be easier for her.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Court declines to interfere with
the impugned order of the OAT. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
S.K. Jena/P.A.
