Case Note & Summary
The appeal by special leave arose from an order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated July 11, 1988 in T.A. No.819 of 1987 (OJC 1215/84). The appellants were members of the ministerial staff in the Police Department of Orissa, working as Lower Division Clerks in offices of the Superintendent of Police and other district offices. They claimed parity of pay scales and other benefits with the ministerial staff working in the offices of DIG, IG, or DGP at headquarters. The Tribunal denied relief on the ground that they constituted a separate cadre and could not be considered on par with headquarters staff. Before the Supreme Court, appellant's counsel relied on a Government of Orissa resolution dated September 7, 1974, particularly paragraphs 2 and 4, contending that all police ministerial officers were treated as a whole unit, though earlier part of separate cadres, and were given benefits of special pay, rent-free accommodation, and house rent allowance as a common cadre. Transfer orders dated May 4, 1981 were cited to show interchangeability between district offices and headquarters. The State contended that despite such method for disciplinary control, recruitment, appointment and control of ministerial staff were governed by Section 7 of the Police Act, 1862 and the Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Clerks and Assistants in the District Offices and Offices of the Heads of Departments) Rules, 1963, which kept district staff separate from headquarters staff. By order dated September 7, 1994, the Supreme Court directed the State to place on record the necessary material, specifically whether any separate rules under Section 7 or resolution adopting the 1963 Rules existed for police ministerial staff. Thereafter, the Government placed before the Court the Orissa District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995, which came into force with effect from February 24, 1995. These Rules made a demarcation between ministerial staff working in district offices and those in DIG, IG and DGP offices. The appellant then contended that preceding February 24, 1995 there were no statutory rules or administrative instructions regulating recruitment, transfer and posting separately for district and headquarters staff; evidence showed interchangeability; therefore they were entitled to parity. The State argued that the resolution of September 7, 1974 and further proceedings of 1984 indicated a distinction between district and headquarters ministerial staff. The Court found force in the appellant's contention and no force in the State's contention. Reading the resolution dated September 7, 1984 (as mentioned in the judgment, though earlier referred to as 1974), the Court held that the resolution only distinguished ministerial staff from executive staff and made no further sub-division among ministerial staff. Since the 1995 Rules came into force prospectively from February 24, 1995, the conditions prevailing before that date continued to operate. Accordingly, the appellants were entitled to the benefits of the resolution dated September 7, 1974. The appeal was allowed to that extent with no costs. The connected writ petition, W.P. (C) No.692 of 1993, was dismissed as infructuous.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Parity - Common Cadre - Police Act, 1862, Section 7; Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Clerks and Assistants in the District Offices and Offices of the Heads of Departments) Rules, 1963; Orissa District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995 - District ministerial staff claimed parity with headquarters staff; earlier Tribunal denied relief on ground of separate cadres - Supreme Court directed production of rules under Article 309; after 1995 Rules came into force prospectively, Court found no prior separate statutory rules and transfer postings showed interchangeability; Held that appellants are entitled to benefits of resolution dated September 7, 1974 (Paras 1-3). B) Service Law - Scope of 1974 Resolution - Distinction Between Ministerial and Executive Staff - Government Resolution dated September 7, 1974 - Appellant argued resolution treated all police ministerial staff as one unit; State argued distinction between district and headquarters staff - Court examined resolution and held it only distinguished ministerial from executive staff and created no further sub-division among ministerial staff; thus parity of treatment required; Held that district ministerial staff are entitled to same pay scales and benefits as headquarters staff (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether police ministerial staff working in district offices were entitled to parity of pay scales and benefits with those working in DIG/IG/DGP offices, given absence of separate rules before 1995
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Appellants entitled to benefits of resolution dated September 7, 1974. No costs. Writ Petition (C) No.692 of 1993 dismissed as infructuous.
Law Points
- Ministerial staff in police department formed a common cadre before 1995 Rules
- separate statutory rules under Article 309 can demarcate cadres prospectively
- benefits of 1974 resolution extended to all ministerial staff
- Section 7 of Police Act 1862 subject to rules
- rules under Article 309 have prospective effect
