Orissa High Court
Surya Narayan Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 13 November, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) Nos.29926 ,25334,25423,25506,26036,26168,
26269,26373,26379,29612,29928,29929,30029 &
30652 of 2025
WP(C ) No.25328 of 2025
Surya Narayan Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Nayak, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr.C.K. Pradhan, AGA
COROM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No 13.11.2025
2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Since the issue in the present batch of Writ Petition is
with regard to entitlements of the Petitioners to get the
benefit of Pay revision w.e.f 01.01.2006 under ORSP Rules,
2008, so rejected by the Government vide different orders
and impugned in the present batch of Writ Petitions, all the
matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the
present common order.
4. It is contended that all the Petitioners in the present
batch of Writ Petitions while continuing under the erstwhile
State Transport Service (STS)were deputed to Orissa State
Road Transport Corporation (in short, "Corporation") at
different point of time. However, even while continuing on
// 2 //
such deputation, Petitioners were extended with all the
benefits as due and admissible as a Government employee.
4.1. It is also contended that earlier when benefit of ORSP
Rules, 1996 was not extended w.e.f 01.01.1996 and the
Corporation took a decision to extend the same from a
subsequent date, pursuant to the order passed by this Court
and during pendency of the Writ Appeal, Government suo
moto extended the benefit of ORSP Rules, 1998 w.e.f
01.01.1996 in favour of the present Petitioners. But instead
of extending the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f
01.01.2006, when the Corporation decided to extend the
benefit w.e.f 01.06.2012, Petitioners claiming the benefit
w.e.f 01.01.2006 moved the authority to extend the same
w.e.f 01.01.2006, in place of 01.04.2012. However, on the
ground that the Petitioners are employees working under the
Corporation and accordingly the State is not liable to pay the
benefit, claim of the Petitioners was rejected vide different
orders passed by Opp. Party No.1., so impugned in the
present batch of Writ Petitions.
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended
that the issue as to whether the Petitioners are Government
employees or not has been set at rest in terms of the order
passed by this Court in OJC No.8217 of 1999, so followed in
Order dt.23.12.2010 in W.P.(C ) No.9579 of 2009. Relevant
portion of order dt.23.12.2010 reads as follows:
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at
length, we find that the question as to whether the
petitioner continued to be a Government servant even
after deputation to O.S.R.T.C. till he attained the age of
superannuation has been set at rest by this Court in
// 3 //
O.J.CNo.8217 of 1999. Even though the petitioner
while working under O.S.R.T.C. on deputation retired
on superannuation, the Court specifically held that he
continued to be a Government servant while working
on deputation till he attained the age superannuation
under O.S.R.T.C. This judgment having not been
challenged either by O.S.R.T.C. or by the State has
attained finality and this question cannot be reopened
again. The question as to whether who is liable to pay
the dues of the petitioner need no further argument in
view of the finding of this Court in the said writ
application. If the petitioner continued to be a
Government servant till his superannuation while on
deputation to O.S.R.T.C. it is the Government, which
has to bear all the dues of the petitioner and not
O.S.R.T.C. Therefore, the Tribunal, while dropping the
contempt proceeding was not justified in holding that
the State Government is not liable to pay the dues of
the petitioner for the period during which he worked
under O.S.R.T.C: on deputation. The notification dated
17.4.2003 cannot have retrospective effect and the
judgment of this Court as well as the Tribunal having
been passed much prior to the said notification, it is the
State and State alone which has to comply with the
directions of this Court as well as the Tribunal passed
in the aforesaid three, Original Applications as well as
O.J.C.No.8217 of 1999.
Accordingly, we allow the Writ application and set
aside the impugned order.
4.3. It is also contended that in terms of the notification
issued by the Transport Department on 05.04.2003, it was
held that all such employees who are on deputation to the
Corporation shall be treated to be on deputation without
deputation allowance till their actual date of
retirement/vacation of employment in the said Corporation
for the purpose of getting their pension. It is accordingly
contended that the ground on which Petitioners' claim has
been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law and
Petitioners are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of
ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f 01.01.2006 in place of 01.04.2012.
// 4 //
5. Basing on the instruction, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate contended that since Petitioners are employees
working under the Corporation and while allowing the
Corporation to extend the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f
01.04.2012, Government took a decision that all additional
financial liability will be borne by the Corporation from its
own sources and Government shall not extend any financial
benefit for this purpose, claim of the Petitioners in the
present batch of Writ Petition to get the benefit w.e.f
01.01.2006 was accordingly rejected. It is contended that
since Government while allowing the Corporation to extend
the benefit of ORSP Rules, 2008 w.e.f 01.04.2012, took a
decision that the financial liability will be borne by the
Corporation, Government is not liable to pay any amount to
the Petitioners w.e.f 1.1.2006.
w5.1. Instruction provided by the Department reads as
follows:
Xxx xxx xxx
In inviting reference to the subject mentioned above, I am
directed to say that Hon'ble Court vide order dated
23.09.2025 instructed the learned Addl.Government
Advocate for obtaining instruction with regard to
Annexure-2 of the writ petition.
In this regard I am directed to intimate that, the following
Ex-STS employees filed writ petitions against the State of
Odisha regarding payment of differential arrear dues out
of Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2008 giving effect from
01.01.2006 inisread of 01.04.2012 by modifying the
order No.12019 dated 26.07.2013 of OSRTC which are
noted below for kind reference.
Table to be inserted later
// 5 //
Where it is submitted that as per Section 4 of the Road
Transport Corporations Act 1950 the Corporation shall be
a "Body Corporate" management would vest in the Board
of Directors with a Committee M Board A regulation
named as Orissa State Road and Transport Employees
(Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Regulations 197 has already been framed to regulate the
pay and allowances for the employees Corporation. The
Corporation is an independent commercial organisation
and it is not as a Department of the State Government
and its employees are also not govt servants Whereas the
Odisha Revised Scale of Pay Rules are applicable only to
the persons in whole time employment of the State
Government. The said Rules are not applicable directly or
indirectly to the employees of Boards. Commissions,
Corporations and other Public Sector Undertakings of the
State Government. When such Organizations revise the
pay of their employees in different revised pay, they can
follow the provision of fixation under the said Rules with
certain conditions keeping in view of the profitability and
financial position of the organisation.
Whereas, the order of implementation of Revised Scale of
Pay Rules, 2008 we.f. 01.04.2012 in favour of the
employees of OSRTC and STS employees on deputation
to OSRTC was approved by the C&T Department with
certain conditions vide Letter No.5525 dtd. 23.07.2013
that the additional financial liability on this account shall
be borne by the OSRTC out of its own resources and
Government shall not extend any financial support for
this purpose and Government shall not be saddledd on
with any financial or legal liabilities on account of
revision of pay scale of the OSRTC employees since the
OSRTC being an independent Corporation body has its
own resources to meet the financial burden for revision of
pay to their employees. (Copy of Letter No. 5525 dtd
23.07.2013 of C&T Department is attached herewith for
kind reference)
Whereas, Government in C&T Department has time and
again clarified to the OSRTC that additional financial
liabilities shall be borne by the OSRTC out of its own
resources and Government shall not extend any financial
support for payment of arrear dues on revised scale of
pay and DA of retired as well as existing OSRTC
employees. (Copy of Letter No. 3141 dtd.15.03.2024 of
C&T Department is attached herewith for kind reference)
// 6 //
Therefore, the above facts may kindly be appraised
before the Hon'ble Court in compliance to the order no.2
dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Court in WP(C)
No 25328 of 2025 and batch case.
Xxx xxx xxx
5.2. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate accordingly
contended that Petitioners are not eligible to get the
benefit of revised scale w.e.f 01.01.2006, and the same
has been rightly rejected by Opp. Party No.1 vide
different orders in the case of the petitioners and it
requires no interference.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties
and considering the submission made, this Court finds that
all the Petitioners while continuing in STS, under the State,
they were deputed to work in the Corporation at different
point of time. It is found that this Court in OJC No.8217 of
2019 has already held that the erstwhile STS employees
working on deputation to the Corporation will continue in
the Government Service till they attain the age of
superannuation under the Corporation. It is also found that
earlier when the benefit of ORSP Rules, 1998 was not
extended in favour of the present Petitioners w.e.f
01.01.1996, the same when was assailed by them before
this Court, Government suo moto extended the benefit w.e.f
01.01.1996 in place of 16.02.2009.
6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the
view that the ground on which claim of the Petitioners has
been rejected in the present batch of Writ Petition by Opp.
Party No.1 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore,
while quashing the impugned order, rejecting the claim of
// 7 //
the Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions, this
Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh
decision, taking into account the order passed by this Court
in W.P.(C ) No.9579 of 2009 on 23.12.2010 as well as the
extension of the benefit of ORSP Rules, 1998 in favour of the
Petitioners w.e.f 01.01.1996. Opp. Party No.1 is directed to
take a fresh decision as directed hereinabove within a period
of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order and
communicate the result thereof to each of the Petitioners
within the aforesaid time period.
6.2. All the Writ Petitions accordingly stand disposed of.
Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected
cases.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Reason: authenticaton of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 17-Nov-2025 18:43:35
