Allowed

M/S.Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. P. Satya N. Patro

Orissa HC2 Dec 2021WA/1/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against an order quashing a decision limiting pension increments. The High Court of Orissa allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order for overlooking a 1999 HR Committee resolution and finding error in quashing the challenged decision without reasoning.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the decision dated 1 August 2005 is set aside. No order as to costs.

M/S.Odisha Power Transmission Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No.1 of 2020

¶3

Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

P. Satyanarayan Patro and another …. Respondents Mr. R. Acharya, Advocate

¶6

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

¶7

ORDER 02.12.2021

¶8

Order No.

¶9

1. The present appeal is directed against an order dated 24^th 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 1^st August 2005 passed by the present Appellant in purported compliance with the earlier order dated 9^th 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 30^th July 1997 issued by the predecessor in interest of the present Appellant i.e. Gird Corporation of Odisha Limited (GRIDCO).

¶10

Page 1 of 5

¶11

In the present appeal, while directing notice to be issued on 26^th November 2020, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was stayed.

¶12

The background facts are that Respondent No.1 initially joined in the erstwhile Orissa State Electricity Board (OSEB) as a Junior Engineer (Electrical) on 13^th January, 1975.

¶13

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 1^st April, 1996.

¶14

While serving in GRIDCO, Respondent No.1 was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on 2^nd April, 2002. He ultimately superannuated on 31^st March, 2003.

¶15

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 18^th March 2005 reducing his pension by 20% permanently.

¶16

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 9^th

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

May 2005 allowing Respondent No.1 to make a representation. Upon consideration, an order was passed on 1^st 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 9^th June, 2005.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.”

¶21

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 30^th July 1997 which permitted three increments. However, as is evident from the counter affidavit filed by OPTCL, the HR Committee of GRIDCO on 6^th January 1999 took a decision to allow stagnation increment

¶22

Page 3 of 5

¶23

up to a maximum two. Consequently, the aforementioned order dated 1^st August 2005 was passed consistent with the said HR Committee resolution.

¶24

It appears that the writ petition was permitted to be amended to challenge the aforementioned office order dated 1^st August 2005 by an order dated 11^th January 2016 in Misc. Case No.21110 of 2015.

¶25

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 30^th July 1997 and therefore the learned Single Judge was right in setting aside the order dated 1^st August 2005.

¶26

As rightly pointed out by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, the above HR Committee resolution dated 6^th 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 1^st 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.

¶27

Page 4 of 5

¶28

Learned Single Judge has in one paragraph simply held that the order dated 1^st 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.

¶29

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 6^th January 1999, much after the earlier notification dated 30^th July 1997, limiting the benefits to two increments. Consequently, the learned Single Judge was in an error in quashing the said decision dated 1^st 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 30^th 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.

¶30

An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶31

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶32

S.K. Guin

¶33

Page 5 of 5

M/S.Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. P. Satya N. Patro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. P. Satya N. Patro

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trinath Jena Vs Collector,Puri

Padmanav Mallick Vs State

Kinu C.Routray Vs State

Rabindranath Jena Vs State and Ors.

Ores Enterprisesp Vs State and Ors.

Biswajit Mohanty Vs Union of India