CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1997) 03 SC CK 0042

Basudev Pati vs State of Orissa and Another

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 3 March 1997 · Citation: (1997) 3 JT 737 : (1997) 3 SCALE 90 : (1997) 3 SCC 632 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 843 : (1997) 2 SCR 637

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Ramaswamy, J · G. T. Nanavati, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
SLP (C) No. 4084 of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 334 words
1.

This SLP is filed against the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack passed on December 6, 1996, in Transfer Application No. 610/87.

2.

Admittedly, the petitioner, while working as a Lecturer, had appeared in competitive examination and was selected to the Orissa Administrative Service. As Orissa Administrative Service, Class-II, his scale of pay was Rs. 525-1150. Earlier, also when he worked as Lecturer, the scale of pay was Rs. 525-1150 which was subsequently revised by the University Grants Commission w.e.f. April 1, 1974 to Rs. 700-1600. In that pay scale, his pay fixed at Rs. 780. He was paid arrears of salary with retrospective effect from 1.1.1974. After he was selected and appointed to the Orissa Administrative Service, he sought protection of his last drawn pay and his upgraded fitment in the pay scale in the Orissa Administrative Service. The Tribunal has rejected the claim. Thus this special leave petition.

2.

Shri Janaranjan Das, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that since the petitioner had been given the pay scale with retrospective effect from 1.1.1974, on his appointment to the Orissa Administrative Service, his last drawn pay need to be protected. As per the instructions of the Accountant General, his pay is entitled to be fixed at Rs. 780 in the pay scale in the service of Orissa Administrative Service. We find no force in the contention. The service as a Lecturer is entirely different from the service of the Orissa Administrative Service. Merely because he happened to work earlier as a Lecturer and in the same pay scale which was subsequently revised, he cannot be permitted to have the benefit of U.G.C. scale in the Administrative Service and fitment in the pay-scale on that basis. That would create imbalance and gross infraction and distortion and would result in flood of claims of similarly situated person under Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Under these circumstances, such a course cannot be permitted to be adopted.

3.

The SLP is dismissed accordingly.