TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his junior Ananta Charan Mohanty joined as Junior Typist on 08.04.1959. Subsequently, both of them were brought over to the Gr.I. Assistant Cadre in Revenue and Exercise Department during the period from 28.04.1966 to 30.06.1976. The petitioner was inducted to OAS Class-II cadre, from the cadre of Gr.I. Assistant, on 09.07.1979, and promoted to OAS Class-I (Jr) with effect from 15.09.1994, whereas Shri Mohanty was inducted from the cadre of Legal Assistant to OAS Class-II cadre, on 20.06.1980, and promoted to OAS Class-I (Jr) with effect from 29.11.1994. Even though Shri Mohanty was junior to the petitioner both in OAS Class-II and OAS Class-I (Jr) cadres, but was getting higher scale of pay than the petitioner. A comparative chart showing placement of the petitioner and Shri Mohanty in OAS Class-II and OAS Class-I (Jr) cadres and the basic salary granted to them at the entry level in both the ranks is given below:- 2.1. The petitioner, having come to know that his junior is getting higher scale of pay than him, represented to the Government to step up his pay to the level of his junior. Since the State opposite parties sat over the matter, the petitioner consequentially moved t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....art, Sri. Mohanty was brought over to the Asst. Cadre of the Department on 2.12.61 as the L.D. Assistant and on 1.3.64; he was promoted to the cadre of Gr. II Assistant with his basic pay of Rs. 145/- P.M. whereas the applicant joined as the L.D. Assistant on 30.7.64 and was drawing pay of Rs. 90/- only. Since then Sri. Mohanty has been drawing higher pay than the applicant all among till now as would be evident from the statement which is filled as Annexure-A to this Counter. It is a fact that the applicant and his counterpart belonged to Gr.-I Assistant cadre of Revenue and Excise Department for the period from 28.4.66 to 30.6.76 wherein also Sri. Mohanty was drawing higher pay than the applicant. It is also a fact that the applicant and his counterpart joined in O.A.S. II cadre against the same Recruitment year but at the time of recruitment, they both did not belong to the same Cadre. The applicant was recruited from the cadre of GR. I Asst. whereas his counterpart was born in the cadre of legal Assistant which bears higher scale of pay than the post of Gr-I Assistant and also Sri. Mohanty was higher pay than the applicant for his longer period of service as well as higher scal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y be entry into OAS Class-II cadre from different cadres, but once they joined in the OAS Class-II cadre, the pay of the senior (petitioner) has to be at par with his junior (Shri Mohanty). In subsequent promotional posts also, such benefit should have been granted to the petitioner. It is further contended that for similarly situated employees, if such benefit has already been extended, why discrimination shall be made in respect of the petitioner, which would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties contended that the petitioner has been denied the benefit of stepping up of pay at par with his junior, taking into consideration the Finance Department Resolution dated 03.05.1985, as the petitioner has not satisfied the conditions stipulated therein. He justifies the order passed by the tribunal denying the benefit of stepping up of pay, so far as the petitioner is concerned, even though he is senior to Shri Mohanty in OAS Class-II cadre as well as in OAS Class-I (Jr) cadre. Hence, the order passed by the tribunal does not warrant interference of this Court. Therefore, he s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of India, the Governor, has been pleased to decide that the benefit of stepping up of pay should be allowed to the Senior only in the case of promotion to the higher post for removing the anomalies on account of fixation of pay under Rule, 47(b) or (c) of the O.S.C. Where a Senior Government Servant promoted or appointed to a higher post, draws less pay in that post than his junior who was promoted or appointed to the higher post subsequently, the pay of the Senior Officer in the higher post should be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for the junior in that higher post. Steeping up of pay should be done with effect from the date of the promotion or appointment of the Junior Officer to the higher posts that is, from the date on which he actually got the pay of the higher post than his Senior and should be subject to the following condition.- a) Both the Junior and Senior Officer should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical in the same cadre. b) The scales of pay of the lower and higher posts, in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical. c) The Senior Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hanty. Therefore, sub-clause (a) of the resolution is satisfied. According to sub-clause (b), the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts, in which they are entitled to draw pay, should be identical. To that extent, there is no dispute that scales of pay of OAS Class-II and OAS Class-I (Jr) are identical to each other and accordingly the petitioner's scale of pay was fixed in terms of said scales of pay in the respective cadre. The petitioner has satisfied this condition to be eligible to get the benefit of stepping up of pay. As per sub-clause (c), the Senior Officer is senior to the Junior Officer both in the lower post as well as in the higher post. In the case at hand, the petitioner is senior to Shri Mohanty both in the lower post, i.e. OAS Class-II and also in the next promotional higher post, i.e. OAS Class-I (Jr). Hence, the petitioner has fulfilled this condition also. But so far as sub-clause (d) is concerned, the junior officer must not draw higher rate of pay than the senior. But, here in this case, in the lower post, Shri Mohanty, being the junior officer, was drawing higher rate of pay than the senior officer, viz., the petitioner. It is this condition, i.e., ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... both belonging to OAS Class-II cadre, become the strength of service or part of service sanctioned as a separate unit. More so, their scale of pay in lower or higher post in which they entitled to draw pay should be identical. More specifically, the petitioner is a senior officer and senior to his junior officer Shri Mohanty both in the lower post, i.e. OAS Class-II as well as in the higher post, i.e. OAS Class-I (Jr). But the junior officer Shri Mohanty was drawing higher rate of pay than that of the pay of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for stepping up of his pay, which is well in consonance of the resolution dated 03.05.1985. The tribunal's finding is that the petitioner does not fulfill the 4th condition of the resolution dated 03.05.1985, meaning thereby, the junior to the petitioner, Shri Mohanty was getting higher rate of pay than that of the petitioner, in the lower post, i.e., OAS Class-II. 11. It is trite-law that if no specific definition has been given to a word or phrase in the Act, then the meaning attached to the same in the dictionary is to be taken as external aid for interpretation of the same. 12. In Coca-Cola Company of Canada Ltd. v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n aid to resolve an ambiguity. The ordinary dictionary meaning cannot be discarded simply because it is given in a dictionary. To do that would be to destroy the literal rule of interpretation. This is a basic rule relying upon the ordinary dictionary meaning which, in the absence of some overriding or special reasons to justify a departure,. must prevail." 17. In State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd., 1985 Supp SCC 280, the apex Court held as follows:- "The dictionary meaning of a word cannot be looked at where that word has been statutorily defined or judicially interpreted but where there is no such definition or interpretation, the court may take the aid of dictionaries to ascertain the meaning of a word in common 1 parlance. In doing so the court must bear in mind that a word is used in different senses according to its context and a dictionary gives all the meanings of a word and the court, therefore have to select the particular meaning which would be relevant to the context in which it has to interpret that word. 18. In view of the law laid down by the apex Court, as discussed above, "stepping up" of pay having not been defined in the Act and the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner, which violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. And as such, the tribunal has not dealt with such part of the contention raised by the petitioner while passing the impugned order. Thereby, there is non-application of mind by the tribunal while passing such order. As the undisputed fact is that the junior to the petitioner, namely, Shri A.C. Mohanty was drawing higher pay in OAS Class-II cadre, before being promoted to OAS Class-I (Jr) cadre, therefore, the petitioner ought to have asked for stepping up of his pay much earlier when both of them were continuing in OAS Class-II cadre itself. Having not done so and making such a claim after being promoted to OAS Class-I (Jr.) cadre, the stand has been taken by the State that it is hit by the principle of waiver and also limitation, as has been prescribed under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. When discrimination has been meted out to the petitioner, the principle of waiver or limitation, as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the State, has no meaning, in view of the fact admittedly a junior to the petitioner is receiving higher pay than that of the petitioner. 21. Keeping in view the judgments of ....