(C.A.V. On 23.03.2023) vs Odisha University Of Agriculture
2023 Latest Caselaw 6540 Ori

         HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK

  W.P.(C) Nos.40093, 40089 & 40091 of 2021, 41062, 40901,
        40903, 41047, 41050, 41055 & 41060 of 2021,
               333, 1495, 1506 & 1531 of 2022
In the matter of the applications under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
                         -----------

W.P.(C) No.40093 of 2021 ... Prabhanjan Mishra (C.A.V. on 22.03.2023)

W.P.(C) No.40089 of 2021 ... Siddharth Ranabijuli (C.A.V. on 22.03.2023)

W.P.(C) No.40091 of 2021 ... Sandeep Mohanty (C.A.V. on 22.03.2023)

W.P.(C) No.41062 of 2021 ... Dr. Prabhat Kumar Padhi (C.A.V. on 23.03.2023)

W.P.(C) No.40901 of 2021 ... Dr. Suman Kumari Joshi (C.A.V. on 23.03.2023)

W.P.(C) No.40903 of 2021 ... Dwarika Mohan Das (C.A.V. on 23.03.2023)

W.P.(C) No.41047 of 2021 ... Binod Kumar Jena (C.A.V. on 23.03.2023)

W.P.(C) No.41050 of 2021 ... Dr. Tapan Kumar Palai (C.A.V. on 23.03.2023)

W.P.(C) No.41055 of 2021 ... Dr. Rashmita Toppo (C.A.V. on 23.03.2023)

W.P.(C) No.41060 of 2021 ... Dr. Jyotiprabha Mishra (C.A.V. on 23.03.2023) // 2 //

W.P.(C) No.333 of 2022 ... Binod Chandra Behera (C.A.V. on 23.03.2023)

W.P.(C) No.1495 of 2022 ... Tiryak Kumar Samant (C.A.V. on 23.03.2023)

W.P.(C) No.1506 of 2022 ... Dr. Ipsita Mishra (C.A.V. on 23.03.2023)

W.P.(C) No.1531 of 2022 ... Dr. Monalisa Behera (C.A.V. on 23.03.2023) ... Petitioners

- Versus -

Odisha University of Agriculture                  ...      Opposite Parties
and Technology (OUAT),                                   (In all cases)
Bhubaneswar and others

Advocate(s) appeared in these cases:-

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner ... Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate M/s. Tanmay Mishra & S.J. Senapati (In W.P.(C) Nos.40089, 40091 & 40093 of 2021 and 333 of 2022) Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty (In W.P.(C) No.41062 of 40901, 10903, 41047, 41050, 41055 & 41060 of 2021 and 1495, 1506, 1531 of 2022 of 2022)

For Opposite Parties ... Mr. Avijit Pal, Advocate.

(For O.P. Nos.1 & 2 in W.P.(C) No.40089, 40091, 40093, 40901 & 40903 of 2021) // 3 //

M/s. P.M. Pattajoshi, D.K. Panda & S.N. Rath. (For O.P. Nos.1 to 3 in In W.P.(C) No.41062, 41050, 41047, 41055, 41060 of 2021, 333, 1495, 1531 & 1506 of 2022)

M/s. Aurovinda Mohanty, S.K. Sahue, B.C. Sahoo & P.R. Dash (For O.P. No.4 in all cases)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Date of judgment : 19th May, 2023

A.K. Mohapatra, J. The above noted batch of writ petition have

been filed by the employees of Krishi Vigyan Kendras

(KVK) functioning under the Odisha University of

Agriculture and Technology (OUAT) with a prayer to quash

order dated 06.11.2021 under Annexure-6 fixing the pay

scale of the Petitioners corresponding to their scale with the

Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- keeping in view the letter of the

ICAR under Annexure-7 Series recommending a Grade Pay

of Rs.5,400/- further for a direction to the Opposite Parties to // 4 //

fix and release the revised scale of pay to the Petitioners as

per the 7th CPC in corresponding scale of pay of Rs.15,600/--

39,100/- plus G.P. Rs.6,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2016 within a

stipulated period of time.

2. Since all the above noted writ petitions involve a

common set of fact and a common question of law, the writ

petition filed by one Prabhanjan Mishra in W.P.(C) No.40093

of 2021 is being taken up as the lead case in the batch of

above noted writ petitions and, accordingly, for the sake of

brevity, the facts involved in the case of Prabhanjan Mishra is

being taken up for analysis to decide the common question of

law involved in the present batch of writ petitions.

3. The factual matrix which was led to filing of the present

writ petition, in short, is that pursuant to the advertisement

dated 08.12.2011, the OUAT, i.e., the Opposite Party-

University inviting applications from eligible candidates for

recruitment of vacant posts in different disciplines of Krishi // 5 //

Vigyan Kendras (in short 'KVSs') functioning under the

OUAT including the post of Subject Matter Specialist in

Horticulture in the Scale of Pay of Rs.15,600-39,100/- plus

AGP of Rs.6,000/- with usual DA and other allowances as

applicable under OUAT Rules. The eligibility condition also

provided that the candidates must have passed NET

Examination.

4. Since the Petitioner had the eligibility for the post of

Subject Matter Specialized in Horticulture, he had submitted

his candidature of the said post of SMS. On the

recommendation by the Standing Selection Committee vide

Office Order dated 17.05.2012, the Petitioner was appointed

as SMS in Horticulture (which was later re-designated as

Scientist), the Petitioner joined immediately pursuant to the

aforesaid appointment letter. It has also been stated in the

writ petition that at the moment the Petitioner has been

posted as Scientist at KVK, Kendrapara and his drawing // 6 //

salary in the Scale of Pay of Rs.15,600-39100/- with AGP of

Rs.6,000/-.

5. It is apt to mention here that the KVKs have been set up

in various districts in the State of Odisha pursuant to MoUs

between India Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) and

the Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology

(OUAT). It is further pertinent to mention here that in some

State KVKs are functioning under the direct control of ICAR,

whereas in some other States, the ICAR has

collaborated/entered into an MoU with the State Agriculture

Universities for smooth functioning of such KVKs. As per

the MoU, the ICAR is to provide the grant and the University

is to provide infrastructure such as manpower, land, animals

etc. of the KVKs. So far the administrative control of the staff

employed in the KVKs, the same shall vest with the State

University. It was also stipulated in the MoU that any

increase in pay over and above the scale approved by ICAR

shall be borne by the University. While this was so, after // 7 //

implementation of recommendation of 7th CPC, when the

OUAT revised to the scale of pay of all KVK employees in

consonance with the recommendation of 7th CPC, however,

the pay of the Petitioner was not revised in terms of

recommendation of 7th CPC. Accordingly, the Petitioner

submitted a representation on 15.05.2021 to the Registrar of

the University requesting him to fix and release his salary in

terms of the recommendation of the 7th CPC.

6. Since no action was taken on the representation dated

16.05.2011, the Petitioner earlier approached this Court by

filing W.P.(C) No.23038 of 2021 for grant of revised scale of

pay in terms of the recommendation of 7th CPC. This Court

vide order dated 17.08.2021 disposed of the writ petition

directing the Opposite Party No.1 to look into the matter and

pass appropriate orders on the representation of the Petitioner

by taking into consideration the grounds raised by the

Petitioner in his representation within a period of two

months.

// 8 //

7. After disposal of the earlier writ petition vide order

dated 17.08.2021, the Petitioner approached the Opposite

Parties and submitted a copy of order dated 17.08.2021 for

their consideration.

8. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. A. Pal,

learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.1 and

2 and Mr. A. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite

Party No.4. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as

well as the documents annexed thereto.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at

the outset, by referring to the advertisement, appointment

order and the pay slip of the Petitioner, submitted that the

Petitioner submitted his application for the post which was

advertised and the scale of pay in the advertisement was

mentioned, i.e., which is Rs.15,600-39100/- plus AGP of

Rs.6,000/-. He further contended that after due selection, the // 9 //

Petitioner was appointed as SMS/Scientist in Horticulture in

the advertisement scale of pay. Thereafter, the Petitioner was

drawing the pay scale that was advertised. Further, the

appointment letter also reveals the scale of pay. Learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the

Opposite Party No.1 relying upon a letter of the ICAR dated

06.11.2011 disposed of the representation of the Petitioner by

fixing his pay as per 7th CPC w.e.f. 01.01.2016 taking into

account the corresponding scale of pay of Rs.15,600-39,100/-

+ G.P. of Rs.5,400/- instead of Rs.6,000/-, i.e., the scale in

which the Petitioner was selected and appointed and he has

been continuing with the aforesaid scale of pay since his

initial date of appointment on 17.05.2012. Therefore, it was

submitted that the rejection of the Petitioner's representation

is highly arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the

advertisement as well as the appointment letter issued in

favour of the Petitioner. Further referring to the letter dated

06.11.2021 of the OUAT under Annexure-6, it was submitted // 10 //

by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

that the representation was rejected by referring to the letters

issued by the ICAR dated 29.03.2011, 09.03.2021,

01.10.2021 and 16.09.2021. He further submitted that the

aforesaid letters of the ICAR reveals that the pay scale of

SMS in KVKs in 7th CPC is fixed in corresponding scale of

pay of Rs.15,600-39,100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/- in

respect of persons, who were recruited before 29.03.2011 and

in corresponding scale of pay Rs.15,600-39,100/- with Grade

Pay of Rs.5,400/- in respect of the persons recruited after

29.03.2011 and any enhancement will be borne by the post

organization.

10. In the aforesaid context, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that sub-

classification within a homogeneous class as done by ICAR

is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.

He further submitted that such sub-classification has been

done without any reasonable nexus with the objects sought to // 11 //

be achieved. Therefore, the same would be hit by the

principle contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the said context, it was also contended that there was no

different between persons who had appointed prior or after

29.3.2011. As such, it was argued that both categories of

persons appointed prior to or after 29.03.2011 are entitled to

the same scale of pay as they are having the same

qualification and performing exactly the same nature of work.

In such view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the Petitioner also contended that the conduct of the

Opposite Parties in reducing the scale of pay after more than

9½ years of service by reducing the Grade Pay from

Rs.6,000/- to Rs.5,400/- ignoring the recommendation of 7th

CPC is unsustainable in law. Further such reduction in Grade

Pay has also disentitled the Petitioner to apply for the next

higher post Scientist and Associate Professor. In the said

context, it was also argued that such reduction in Grade Pay

is in the nature of punishment without following due // 12 //

procedure of law that too without any fault on the part of the

Petitioner. Therefore, it was submitted that the order dated

06.11.2021 under Annexure-6 is illegal, arbitrary and

unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same should be

quashed.

11. Per contra, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 have filed a

joint counter affidavit wherein it has not been disputed that

the Petitioner was selected an appointed pursuant to

Advertisement dated 08.12.2011 under Annexure-1 as SMS

in KVK. Further, it has also been admitted that the Petitioner

was appointed in the scale of pay of Rs.15,600-39,100/- with

Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/- at the time of his appointment. The

Opposite Parties have further stated that the ICAR vide letter

dated 29.03.2011 has issued a guideline where the pay scale

was prescribed at Rs.15,600-39,100/- plus Grade Pay of

Rs.5,400/- and pursuant to the said guideline, the Grade Pay

of the Petitioner has been reduced from Rs.6,000/- to

Rs.5,400/- w.e.f. 29.03.2011. It has also been stated in the // 13 //

counter affidavit that the aforesaid letter was received on

28.05.2021 and, accordingly, the Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- has

been implemented in KVKs of ICAR.

12. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties referring to the

MoU contended before this Court that execution of such

MoU between ICAR and OUAT was within the knowledge

of Government of Odisha. It was further contended before

this Court that one of the important conditions of MoU is that

the ICAR is to provide funds for running of KVKs in the

state and the OUAT as host institution will have the

administration control over the staff in the KVKs.

13. In course of time and through several discussions and

deliberations with the Government of Odisha, the status of

KVK employees under OUAT has been clarified vide letter

dated 27.08.2014. As per the conditions contained in the

clarification, the KVK employees are to be treated as

contractual project staff and to be allowed regular scale of // 14 //

pay with annual increment and other benefits as per the ICAR

guidelines, till funding of ICAR continues. Further, the KVK

employees are not entitled to terminal benefits and their

service is coterminous with the project. The State

Government and OUAT will not shoulder any kind of

liability pertaining to KVKs and the transfer of KVK

employees will be within the KVKs only.

14. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties further

submitted that before this Court that at the time of

appointment of the Petitioner in the year 2011, the letter of

the ICAR for appointment of KVK Scientists in the scale of

pay as mentioned hereinabove with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-

w.e.f. 29.03.2011 had not reached the OUAT, therefore, the

selection and posting of Scientists in KVKs continued in the

scale of pay as per the existing provision of Rules. However,

after receiving a clear guideline from the ICAR vide latter

dated 04.09.2017, the recruitment to the post of SMS is being

made in the scale of pay with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-. It was // 15 //

also contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that

this defect was detected when the case of the Petitioner was

being considered of revision of 7th UGC pay w.e.f.

01.01.2016 and by that time they have received letter dated

09.03.2011 of the ICAR. Therefore, the pay of the Scientists

including the Petitioner having Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/- who

have been recruited on or before 29.03.2011 have not been

fixed in their corresponding 7th CPC scale of pay w.e.f.

01.01.2016. Further, it was submitted that considering the

discontentment among the Scientists, the OUAT sought for a

clarification from the ICAR vide letter dated 30.06.2021 with

a request to allow Grade Pay of Rs.6,600/- to the Scientists of

KVKs under OUAT, who have been recruited after

29.03.20211. In response to the said letter, the ICAR vide its

letter dated 01.10.2021 gave a clarification to follow the

guidelines received from ICAR vide letter dated 16.09.2021.

Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties further submitted

that the clarification letter dated 16.09.2021 of the ICAR // 16 //

provides that the liability of the ICAR will be limited to pay

the salary benefit for Rs.5,400/- Grade Pay only for SMS.

Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties also submitted that

for funding of the projects like KVK, the OUAT depends on

the 100% funding by ICAR. The OUAT also depends on

such funds for payment of salary to the employees engaged in

KVK projects. Since the OUAT does not have a its own

source of fund, it cannot pay the benefit to the KVK

employees. In such view of the matter and keeping in view

the fact that the clarification of the ICAR, the OUAT decided

to pay the Petitioner the 7th CPC recommendation w.e.f.

01.01.2016 by allowing a Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-.

15. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the

Opposite Party No.4, i.e., ICAR. In its counter affidavit, the

Opposite Party No.4 has given a detailed description of the

organization and the projects undertaken by it. They have

narrated in detail about the establishment of KVKs in

different modes. They have also admitted that the project is // 17 //

100% funded by the ICAR through a scheme. In the counter

affidavit, further the Opposite Party No.4 has stated that on

the basis of the MoU, the KVKs have floated advertisement

for appointment as SMS and other technical staff and that the

Opposite Party No.4 is to provide 100% funding as per the

stigmatic demand and all other responsibilities were cast on

Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and, accordingly, it was submitted

that since the order dated 06.11.2021 under Annexure-11,

which is impugned in the present writ petition, has been

passed by Opposite Party No.1 to 3, the Opposite Party No.4

has no role at all in the same.

16. In the counter affidavit of the Opposite Party No.4, it

has also been stated that with regard to the claim of revised

scale of pay by the staff of KVKs in terms of the

recommendation of 6th CPC, it has been mentioned in the

letter dated 29.03.2011 that the SMS has been described as

"Technical Staff" and not a 'Scientist'. Therefore, the pay

scale assigned to the said post in the 6th CPC was with a // 18 //

Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-. In the said letter, it has also been

clarified that the liability of ICAR towards payment of pay

and allowances will however be limited to pay scales as per

the KVKs under ICAR institutes or actual whichever is less.

It was further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for

the Opposite Party No.4 that with regard to guideline for

recruitment and placement of KVK staff, the ICAR provides

100% financial assistance to the KVKs under the 'Salary',

'Capital' and 'General' heads of the annual budget and the

service condition of the employees of the KVKs are to be

governed by the rules and guidelines of the host organization,

i.e., OUAT in the present case. Further, the recruitment of

staff is to be done by the host organization. The Opposite

Party No.4 has appended the pay structure of different

employees of KVKs as well as the KVKs which are

functioning under the administrative control of the OUAT in

the State of Odisha. It has also been stated in the counter

affidavit that Zonal Office of ICAR to which funds are // 19 //

transferred to OUAT is ICAR-Agricultural Technology

Application Research Institute (ATARI), Kolkata. In the

counter affidavit of the Opposite Party No.4, it has been

categorically stated that ICAR is liable to pay only the salary

as per the shame/guidelines of the ICAR in respect of the

staff required for running a scheme and the salary structure

shall be as provided in the guidelines and approved by the

Government of India. Furthermore, it has also been stated

that the employees working in the KVKs are not the

employees of ICAR rather they are employees of the host

institution and under the administrative control of such host

institutions.

17. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit filed by

the Opposite Party No.4 that since the scheme which has

been floated by the ICAR in which the financial assistance

and approval of the Government of India, the same is strictly

as per the financial out claim of the Government of India.

Therefore, no changes can be made to be esteemed by the // 20 //

ICAR. It is further contended that any appointment to any of

the post under the scheme are to be made strictly as provided

under the Scheme that too in the scale of pay which is

applicable to such approved staffing pattern. It was further

contended that the ICAR has not issued any executive order

for re-designation of SMS as Scientist. It was also contended

that there is no clause in the MoU which supports providing

of differential amount toward salary cost from ICAR funds, if

the pay scales given by the host organization are higher than

those approved for KVK. On the contrary, the MoU

specifically says that the additional financial liability is to be

borne by the host organization.

18. The Petitioners have also filed rejoinder affidavit

rebutting the assertion of the Opposite Parties in their counter

affidavit. Therefore, on perusal of such rejoinder affidavit,

this Court found that most of the pleading in the rejoinder are

repetition of the assertions made in the writ petition itself.

// 21 //

Therefore, this Court did not feel necessity of discussing

contents of such rejoinder affidavit in details in this order.

19. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective

parties and upon a careful consideration of the documents

placed on record by way of annexures to the pleadings, this

Court to resolve the dispute is required to find out to what

was the terms and conditions under which the Petitioners

were appointed and such appointment was by whom. In reply

to the aforesaid questions, this Court had glance on the

advertisement dated 8th December, 2011 under Annexure-1.

On perusal of the said advertisement, it appears that the same

was issued by the OUAT-Opposite Party No.1 to the writ

petition. The advertisement reveals that the applications were

invited from eligible candidates for recruitment to the vacant

posts in KVKs with a clear stipulation that the services will

be co-terminus with the funding of ICAR and that no

terminal benefit shall be allowed as per ICAR norms. So far

the post of SMS is concerned, a scale of pay of Rs.15,600-

// 22 //

39,100/- plus AGP of Rs.6,000/- has been prescribed in the

advertisement. Moreover, on being selected by the Standing

Selection Committee, the Petitioner was issued with an

appointment letter dated 17.5.2012 under Annexure-2. A

close scrutiny of the said appointment letter also reveals that

the scale of pay as advertised has been specifically mentioned

in such appointment letter. Thereafter, the Petitioner joined in

service and was drawing the scale of pay as advertised and in

which he was appointed to the post of SMS. While the

Petitioner was continuing in service, the Petitioner submitted

a representation on 16.05.2021 claiming 7th CPC

recommended scale of pay. Since the same was not

considered by the authorities, the Petitioner approached this

Court in the earlier writ petition, which was disposed of vide

order dated 17.08.2021 directing the authorities to consider

the representation of the Petitioner.

20. Pursuant to the order dated 17.01.2021 passed by this

Court in the earlier writ petition, the Opposite Parties No.1 // 23 //

consider the representation of the Petitioner and vide order

dated 06.11.2021, the representation of the Petitioner with a

claim of scale of pay with Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/- was

rejected by relying upon a letter of the ICAR dated

29.03.2011. Further, pursuant to such clarification of ICAR

dated 29.03.2011, the Petitioner was granted the scale of pay

with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- and, accordingly, his

representation was disposed of. Since the clarification of

ICAR vide letter dated 29.03.2011 creating two different sub-

classes within one class and prescribing two different pay

scales with the cut-off date of 29.03.2011 has not been

challenged by the Petitioner in the present writ application.

Therefore, this Court has no occasion to examine the validity

of letter dated 29.03.2021 under Annexuer-7 Series.

21. On a careful analysis of the aforesaid facts, this Court is

of the considered view that in view of the MoU executed

between ICAR and OUAT, the ICAR shall provide 100%

funding, however, the host institution, i.e., OUAT has to // 24 //

appoint the employees and such appointed employees shall

be under the administrative control of OUAT. Indisputably,

there is no statutory rule governing the selection and

appointed of the staffs/officers in KVKs under the OUAT.

Such appointments being under a scheme/guideline, this

Court has to examine by keeping in view the MoU and the

advertisement issued for such appointment. Admittedly, the

advertisement was issued by the OUAT by prescribing the

scale of pay with a Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/- for the post of

SMS under Annexure-1. On being duly selected by Standing

Selection Committee, the Petitioners were appointed and

were being paid the scale of pay which was advertised and in

which they were appointed. Therefore, the contractual

relationship between the Opposite Party No.1 and the present

Petitioner is to be governed by the terms of advertisement

and the appointment as contained under Annexure-1 and 2 in

the absence of any statutory rules. So to say, the relationship // 25 //

is purely contractual and the same is to be governed by the

terms of contract under which the Petitioners were appointed.

22. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law, this

Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the

Petitioners were appointed by OUAT in a prescribed scale of

pay with a Grade Pay of Rs.6,600/-. No doubt, the project

undertaken by the OUAT is being 100% financed by ICAR,

the OUAT is independently liable to the employees, who

were engaged by them including the Petitioners. Therefore,

the OUAT is legally liable to pay the scale of pay with Grade

Pay that was advertised and the appointment was made

subject to such scale of pay with Grade Pay. With regard to

the fact that the scale of pay with Grade Pay, which is in

excess of the guidelines or clarification of the ICAR, the

same is to be resolved between OUAT and the ICAR in terms

of the MoU. The Petitioner not being a party to the MoU is

only to bound by the advertisement and the appointment

letter. As has been stated earlier that since the decision of the // 26 //

ICAR dated 29.03.2011 has not been challenged in the

present writ petitions, this Court had no occasion to consider

the validity of the same. Therefore, it is upto the Opposite

Parties No.1 to 3 to raise the same before the ICAR and

resolve the same amicably with ICAR.

23. So far present Petitioners are concerned, this Court is of

the considered view that they are entitled to the scale of pay

that was promised to them through the advertisement as well

as the appointment letter under Annexure-1 and 2 and,

accordingly, it is directed that the Opposite Party No.1 shall

pay the scale of pay of Rs.15,600/-39,100/- plus AGP of

Rs.6,000/- to the Petitioners w.e.f. 01.01.2016, as a

consequence of such direction, the impugned order rejecting

the representation of the Petitioner vide order dated

06.11.2021 under Annexure-6 is hereby quashed. The

Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are further directed to calculate

and sanction the differential arrear taking into consideration

the pay scale prescribed under Annexure-1 and 2 and shall do // 27 //

well to pay the arrear differential amount within a period of

two months from the date of communication of this

judgment.

24. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ

Petitions are allowed. However, there shall be no order as to

cost.

(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 19th May, 2023/D. Aech, P.A.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: PA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC CUTTACK Date: 21-May-2023 18:46:40