Supreme Court Remands Odisha Pay Scale Dispute: State of Odisha vs. Sri Satya Narayan Behura (2020)

Date of the Judgment: February 28, 2020
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Vineet Saran, J.
This case revolves around a dispute regarding the pay scale and financial benefits of an employee of the Odisha State Government. The Supreme Court addressed the matter of whether the employee was entitled to certain financial upgradations under the Revised Assured Career Progression Scheme (RACP Scheme). The court did not make a final decision on the merits of the case but instead remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Case Background

The respondent, Sri Satya Narayan Behura, joined as an Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF), Grade-B on November 6, 1990, in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Ghumsur North Division, Bhanjanagar, Odisha. At the time, the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 (ORSP Rules, 1998) were in effect. These rules provided for Time Bound Advancement (TBA) scales upon completion of 15 and 25 years of service for employees who had not received promotions or TBA scales.

The Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2008 (ORSP Rules, 2008) came into force on January 1, 2006. Rule 14 of these rules introduced the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme, which could be availed in three stages upon completion of 15, 25, and 30 years of service in their original post or grade. This benefit was subject to screening by a departmental committee.

On February 6, 2013, the Government of Orissa introduced the Revised Assured Career Progression Scheme (RACP Scheme), effective from January 1, 2013. This scheme provided for three financial upgradations upon completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of service in a single cadre, in the absence of any promotion. A subsequent Office Memorandum on February 23, 2016, clarified that any prior upgradation with a financial component would fulfill the spirit of the RACP Scheme.

The State Government, believing that the respondent had already availed the benefits of the Rules and the Scheme, issued an order on August 7, 2016, to withdraw the financial upgradation sanctioned to the respondent, citing excess payment. A formal order to this effect was issued on August 29, 2016.

The respondent contended that the benefits given to him were within the provisions of the Rules and the RACP Scheme. He filed O.A. No. 762 of 2017 before the State Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, seeking to quash the withdrawal order and the clarification memorandum.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The State Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, allowed the respondent’s O.A. on November 16, 2017, quashing the order dated August 29, 2016. The Tribunal held that the Office Memorandum dated February 23, 2016, was not in consonance with the RACP Scheme of February 6, 2013. It directed that the respondent be allowed to continue in the grade pay of Rs. 7600 towards the second upgradation under RACP.

The State of Orissa challenged this order by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 19368 of 2018 before the High Court, which was dismissed on January 3, 2019. The High Court did not provide any reasons for dismissing the Writ Petition, only quoting paragraph 7 of the Tribunal’s order.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation and application of the following rules and schemes:

• Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 (ORSP Rules, 1998): These rules provided for Time Bound Advancement (TBA) scales after 15 and 25 years of service. Rule 8 of the said Rules provided for Time Bound Advancement (for short “TBA”) scales to be given on completion of 15 years and 25 years of service, which was in case the employees who had not availed such benefit of promotion or TBA scales.
• Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2008 (ORSP Rules, 2008): These rules introduced the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme. Rule 14 provided for Assured Career Progression (for short, ‘ACP’) which could be availed in three stages i.e. on completion of 15 years, 25 years and 30 years of service in their original post or grade and such benefit of ACP was to be given only after screening each and every case by the Screening Committee to be constituted by the Department.
• Revised Assured Career Progression Scheme (RACP Scheme) (2013): This scheme provided for three financial upgradations upon completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of service in a single cadre, in the absence of any promotion. According to the same, three financial upgradations were to be accorded on completion of 10 years, 20 years and 30 years of service in a single cadre, which was in the absence of any promotion.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Orissa) Arguments:

• The respondent was granted a Time Bound Advancement (TBA) scale on 10.11.2005 under the ORSP Rules, 1998, after completing 15 years of service.
• On 13.10.2009, the respondent received a second upgradation, which was equivalent to a promotion, granting him Group-A Junior Branch status as ACF (entry grade post).
• On 05.06.2010, the respondent received a third promotion through pay upgradation, promoting him to OFS (Group-A) Senior Branch.
• The RACP Scheme is similar to the Time Bound Advancement (TBA) scale.
• The benefit given to the respondent on 10.11.2005 was the first benefit, and the benefits on 13.10.2009 and 05.06.2010 were the second and third benefits, respectively.
• The respondent received three benefits within 20 years of service, whereas the RACP Scheme only allows for two such benefits.
• The subsequent pay scale raise on 24.02.2015 was a mistake by the Department.
• The Office Memorandum dated 23.02.2016 was justified because the earlier upgradation (with financial benefit) fulfilled the spirit of the RACP Scheme.
• The order dated 07.08.2016 and the order dated 29.08.2016 are justified.

Respondent (Sri Satya Narayan Behura) Arguments:

• The respondent received only one upgradation/promotion on 05.06.2010 in 20 years of service.
• The TBA on 10.11.2005 should not be counted under the RACP Scheme.
• The upgradation on 13.10.2009 was a general upgradation and not a specific benefit under the RACP Scheme.
• The first benefit under the RACP Scheme was given on 05.06.2010.
• The benefit on 24.02.2015 was the second benefit under the RACP Scheme upon completion of 20 years of service.
• The Tribunal correctly allowed the respondent’s claim.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues for determination. However, the core issue was whether the respondent was entitled to the financial upgradation under the RACP Scheme, considering the previous benefits he had received.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following cases were cited by the appellant:

• Union of India vs S. S. Ranade (1995) 4 SCC 462 – Supreme Court of India
• State of Rajasthan vs Fateh Chand Soni (1996) 1 SCC 562 – Supreme Court of India
• Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs R. Santhakumari Velusamy (2011) 9 SCC 510 – Supreme Court of India
• Hukum Chand Gupta vs Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (2012) 12 SCC 666 – Supreme Court of India
• Secretary, Government (NCT of Delhi) vs Grade-I Dass Officers’ Association (2014) 13 SCC 296 – Supreme Court of India

The court did not discuss the ratio of the authorities cited.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to remand the case indicates that the Court was primarily concerned with ensuring a thorough and reasoned judgment. The Court noted that the High Court had not provided any reasons for dismissing the Writ Petition, and had merely quoted from the Tribunal’s order. This lack of independent reasoning by the High Court weighed heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision to send the matter back for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court also noted that certain circulars and clarifications given by the Finance Department of the Government of Orissa, which were not part of the record before the Tribunal or the High Court, were presented before it. This indicated that a more detailed examination of the facts and legal arguments was necessary.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court did not make a decision on the merits of the case. Instead, it noted that the High Court had not provided any reasons for dismissing the Writ Petition, and had merely quoted from the Tribunal’s order. The Supreme Court also noted that certain circulars and clarifications given by the Finance Department of the Government of Orissa, which were not part of the record before the Tribunal or the High Court, were presented before it. The Court was of the opinion that the contentions raised by the counsels ought to have been taken into account while passing the judgment in the Writ Petition. It, therefore, remanded the matter to the High Court for deciding the Writ Petition afresh, in accordance with law and after dealing with all the contentions raised by the parties.

The Court stated, “In our considered view, the contentions, as raised by the Counsel for the parties, ought to have been taken into account, while passing the judgment in the Writ Petition, which has not been done so in the present case.”

The Court also noted that, “Learned Counsel for both the parties have also accepted the fact that the High Court has not given any reason for dismissing the Writ Petition and only quoted the paragraph 7 of the Order of the Tribunal and dismissed the Writ Petition, without giving any finding of its own.”

The Court further stated that, “As such, we are of the opinion that the matter should be remanded to the High Court for deciding the Writ Petition afresh, in accordance with law and after dealing with all the contentions raised by the parties.”

There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of reasoned judgments by High Courts.
• The matter has been remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration of all contentions raised by the parties.
• The High Court is expected to consider all arguments and documents presented by both parties, including any additional affidavits.
• The Supreme Court has directed the High Court to expedite the matter and decide the Writ Petition preferably within six months.

Directions

The Supreme Court has directed the following:

• The matter is remanded to the High Court to decide the Writ Petitions afresh, after considering the various contentions raised by the parties.
• The appellants are granted liberty to file additional affidavits in the Writ Petitions within four weeks from the date the Writ Petitions before the High Court stands revived.
• The respondent shall have three weeks thereafter to file additional counter affidavits.
• Rejoinders, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
• The High Court shall, thereafter, make every endeavor to decide the Writ Petitions as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the filing of the affidavits as indicated above.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must provide reasoned judgments, especially when dealing with complex matters involving service law and financial benefits. The Supreme Court has not changed any previous position of law but has emphasized the importance of the High Courts to give reasoned judgments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to remand the case back to the High Court underscores the need for thorough and reasoned judgments, especially in matters concerning employee benefits and government schemes. The High Court is now tasked with re-evaluating the case, taking into account all contentions and evidence presented by both parties. This case highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the need for all legal arguments to be given due consideration.

Category

• Service Law
  • Pay Scales
  • Time Bound Advancement
  • Assured Career Progression
  • Revised Assured Career Progression Scheme
• Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998
  • Rule 8, Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998
• Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2008
  • Rule 14, Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2008

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the State of Odisha vs. Sri Satya Narayan Behura case?

A: The main issue was whether the respondent, an employee of the Odisha State Government, was entitled to certain financial upgradations under the Revised Assured Career Progression Scheme (RACP Scheme), considering previous benefits he had received.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court did not make a final decision on the merits of the case. Instead, it remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to consider all contentions raised by the parties.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court remand the case to the High Court?

A: The Supreme Court remanded the case because the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition without providing any reasons and had merely quoted from the Tribunal’s order. The Supreme Court also noted that additional documents were presented before it which were not considered by the lower courts.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?

A: The key takeaways are that High Courts must provide reasoned judgments, especially in complex cases. The matter has been sent back to the High Court for a fresh review, and the High Court is expected to consider all arguments and evidence presented by both parties.

Q: What is the Revised Assured Career Progression Scheme (RACP Scheme)?

A: The RACP Scheme is a scheme introduced by the Government of Orissa, which provides for financial upgradations to employees upon completion of certain years of service in a single cadre, in the absence of any promotion.