SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY AND ORS. v. ST ATE OF ORISSA AND ORS

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 976

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK, U.C. BANERJEE

Judgment text

SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY AND ORS. v. STATE OF ORISS/. AND ORS. MAY 9, 2002 [G. B. PATTANAIK AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ. ] Orissa District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995. Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Assistants a_nd Section Officers in the Offices of the Heads of Department) Rules, 1994. . Service law: Parity of benefits of pay scales and promotional benefits-State of Orissa-Police Department-Ministerial staff-Working in Headquarters and those working in Districts-Held, there was no fusion oftwo cadres prior to or after 1995 Rules-Resolution dated 7th September, 1974 ofGovernment of Orissa-1'. _ormation of Police Ministerial Officers cadre-Effect and interpretation of.

The issue in this appeal and writ petition relates to parity of benefits of pay scales and other emoluments between the members of the ministerial staff in the Police Department of Orissa working in the offices of the Superintendent of Police and other district officers with that of the ministerial staff working in the offices of DIG, IG or DGP at the Headquarters. For claiming parity reliance was placed on the Resolution dated /th September, 1974 of Government of Orissa, Home Department, . .. Bhubaneshwar. The said Resolution pertained to formation of all Police Ministerial Officers in the State into one separate cadre and directed the recruitment to be under section 7 of the Police Act, 1861. Further all Police Ministerial Officers in the State were to be designated as Police Officers (Ministerial). .. I SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY v. STATE 977 The Orissa Administrative Tribunal by its order dated I Ith July, 1988 dismissed the petition.

It held that (i) the contention of the petitioners that a single cadre for all Police Ministerial Officers irrespective of the office/level they were working had been created under Resolution cannot be accepted. Consequently, there is no force in the contention of the petitioners that they were entitled to be considered for promotion for posts occurring in the higher ranks in the office of DIG/IG/DGP after the Resolution was passed; and (ii) the Resolution does not create a single cadre for Police Ministerial Officers irrespective of the office/level in \Vhich they happen to be working. The main purpose of mentioning in para 2 of ... the Resolution that the police ministerial officers..

\Viii form a separate cadre within the general cadre of the Orissa Police and will be designated as Police Officers (Ministerial) was to distinguish them from the executive · police officers and as is clear from the mention in para 3 of the Resolution 'since the duties assigned to them are different, they will have no occasion to exercise the powers and functions of the executive Police Officers. ' Against the decision of Tribunal appeal was preferred before this Court and this Court in its order dated November 28, 1995 found that Orissa District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995 made a . demarcation between the ministerial staff working in the District Offices and those working in the offices of DIG, IG and DGP. Against the order of this Court dated 28th November, 1955, the State Government filed a revie\\o' petition \Vhich \\. 'as dismissed.

Thereafter, an application for modification of the order dated 28th November, 1995 and impleadment was filed by some of the petitioners claiming to be affected • ' by the order on the ground that the order was not binding on them. The application for modification and impleadment was converted into a revie\\' petition by this Court and by its order dated 16th April, 1998 the review petition was allowed and order dated 28th November, 1955 was recalled. The connected writ petition was also restored. It was also clarified that benefits granted pursuant to order dated 28th November, 1995 were not to be disturbed. The question before this Court in appeal and writ petition is: Whether by virtue of Government of Orissa Resolution dated 7. 9. 1974 any fusion of t\vo erstwhile cadres of ministerial staff working in the offices of DIG, IG and DGP at headquarters and the ministerial staff working in - 'r the districts under the District Superintendents of Police was effected till 24. 2.

1995 when the Orissa District Police Mi1 - SISIR KUMAR MOHANTY ,.. STATE [UMESH C. BANERJEE, . 1. l 989 any police officer of the subordinate ranks who shall discharge his duty in a careless or negligent manner, or who by any act his O'Nll shall render himself unfit for the discharge thereof, namely:- (a) fine to any amount not exceeding one month's pay; (b) confine1nent to quarters for a tern1 not exceeding fifteen days, with or without punishtnent-drill, extra, guard, fatigue or other duty; (c) deprivation of good conduct pay; -~ (d) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument. " Having regard to the provisions of Section 7 of the Police Act read \Nith Clause 2 of the resolution, Clause 3 thereof becomes relevant and though noticed above, we dee111 it fit to reproduce the same once again as below: "3. Since the duties assigned to them are different, they will have no occasion to exercise the power and functions of the executive Police Officers.

They will, however, be subject to the Police discipline as far as it will be applicable to their sphere of duties. They will not be entitled to appointments or promotions to the executive posts and the present procedure regarding their appointment and promotion will continue tu operate. " Let us, however, at this juncture ·note the recording of the Tribunal's order apropos para 2 of. the resolution. In para 6 of the Tribunal's order it has been recorded as below: "6.

On a careful reading of the Resolution we find that no doubt there is 1nention in para 2 of the Resolution that 1ninisterial police officers will constitute a separate cadre \Vithin the cadre of general Police and will be designated as Police Officers (Ministerial}, but, nowhere it has been mentioned in the Resolution that the separate cadre of Police Ministerial officers so formed will be a single cadre for all the officers working in the Police Establishment irrespective of the offices and levels in which they are or would happen to be working. ....................................................................... In this context and in vielv ofthe specific duties assigned to then1 are different they will have no occasion lo exercise the powers and " fimctions ofthe executive police officers. They will, however, be subject lo ! he Police discipline as }Gr as it lFill be applicable to their sphere ofduties.

They will not be entitled to appointments or promotions to the executive posts and the present procedure regarding their appointment and promotion will continue to operate. " (Emphasis ours), It is clear that the Resolution does not create a single cadre for police ministerial officers irrespective of the office/level in which they happen to be working. It seems to us that the main purpose of mentioning in para 2 that the police ministerial officers will form a separate cadre within the general cadre of the Orissa Police and will be designated as Police Officers (Ministerial) was to distinguish them from the executive police officers and as is clear from the mention in para 3 of the Resolution "since the duties assigned to them are different, they will have no occasion to exercise the powers and functions of the executive Police Officers. They will, however, be subject to the Police discipline as far as it will be applicable to their sphere of duties.

They will not be entitled to appointments or promotions to the executive posts. " As the position is well settled that while interpreting statutes/Government orders they have to be read as a whole and construction given has to be a harmonious one, considering the Resolution as a whole we are firmly of the view that the contention ofthe petitioners that a single cadre for all police ministerial officers irrespective ofthe office/level they were working had been created under this Resolution cannot be accepted. Consequently, we also conclude that there is no force/merit in the contention ofthe petitioners that they were entitled to be considered for promotion for posts occurring in the higher ranks in the office ofD. I. G. 11. G. ID. G. P. after this Resolution was issued.

(Emphasis Supplied) Significantly, however, the entire police administration in the State of Orissa stands governed by the Orissa Police Manual, which in effect maintains two classes of ministerial staff to wit, in the office of the DG/IG of Police and in districts in the office of the Superintendent of Police. The educational qualifications required and the method of recruitment are different as regards the appointment in the aforesaid posts. The same reads as below: "(a) Educational Qualification- Except with the specific orders of Government in the Home Department no person shall be appointed- . ,. -. (i) as a lower division assistant in the Secretariat unless he holds as degree of a recognised University in Arts, Science or Commerce; / SISIR KUMAR MOIJANTY v. s·1 i\llo llJMESH c. BANERJEE. J. J 991 . _-'t (ii) as a lower division assistant in the office of Heads of Departments unless he has passed the Intermediate Examination of recognised University in Arts, Science or Co1nmerce.

(iii) as a clerk in the district offices unless he has passed the Matriculation Exan1ination or its equivalent fro1n a recognised . , University. (b) Methods of recruitment- -~ Recruit111ent shall be 111ade by tneans of co1npetitive exa1nination which shall be separate for the Secretariat. Offices of Heads of Depart111ents and district offices. The exan1ination for the Secretariat shall be conducted by the Public Service Commission. that for the offices of Heads of Departments by a Board of Examiners to be appointed by Government in the Home Department and that for district offices by the Divisional Commissioner concerned. The Board of Examiners referred to above shall ordinarily consist of a Secretary to Government as President, the Principal of a College and the Under ..... Secretary to GovE:rntnent in the Honie Department as 1nen1bers. The Under Secretary to Government in the Home Department shall be the ex-officio Secretary to the Board.

" During the course of hearing the appellants were rather vocal as regards the transfer of the staff of the district offices to that of the DG/IG of Policethe san1e, however, stands negated by the State-respondents with a positives asse11ion that there has not even been a single case of transfer fro1n the district to the IG ·s office or vice-versa ever-since the fonnation of the police force in the State of Orissa. . r It is also a redee111ing feature to know that presently hvo sets of Recruitment Rules for ministerial staff to the office of the DG/IG of Police as well as to the district offices framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are available for proper guidance. Whereas the Orissa Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Assistants and Section Officers in the Offices of the Heads of Department) Rules.

1994 govern the office of the DG/IG of Police, the Orissa District Police Ministerial Officers (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995 govern the area of district offices. ~ - In fine. therefore. it appears that prior to the fran1ing of the aforesaid recruit111cnt rules, the field \Vas covered under executive instructions and by reason of the methodology of recruitment and the qualifications being different for appointment for the two categories mentioned above, the distinction thus between the two sets uf officers have always been maintained. The learned advocate for the State further drew our attention, during the course of hearing, as regards the pay scales of the two categories but in the view we have taken is noticed hereinbefore, we do not deem it fit to further dilate thereon. Suffice it to note that the same also lends credence to the submissions of the State.

"-· In that view of the matter, question of fusion of two erstwhile cadres of ministerial staff at the DG/IG of Police and in the districts does not and cannot arise and the subsequent framing of Rules under Article 309 lends ;. ;redence to such an observation. On the wake of the aforesaid, the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted in any way. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The limited question as raised by this Court while passing the order of restoration (as noticed above) is thus answered in the affinnative to the effect that there has been no fusion at any point of time even prior to the enactment of Rules coming into force from 24th February, 1995.

As regards the consequence, be it, however, noted that by reason of specific direction of this Court that even if the appellants herein ultimately lose in the civil appeal and it is held that there was no fusion of the two cadres of ministerial staff but still on the ground ofequal pay for equal work remain entitled to the monetary benefits as indicated in the judgment [1998] 6 sec 176: paragraph 4 The aforesaid direction obviously has drawn inspiration from the earlier judgment of this Court in [1996] 7 sec 120.

We may be having a different view of the matter of restoration of an appeal but by reason of a specific decision of this Court to the effect as noticed above and the factum ofjudicial precedents being a valued consideration in our justice delivery system, we do not wish to depart therefrom and as such the monetary benefits, even after the dismissal of the appeal, as is otherwise available to the appellants in terms of the earlier judgment be made available so as to comply with the terms of the order. Incidentally, further leave has also been granted for initiation of further legal proceedings in the order of restoration as regards the ministerial staff working in the district establishment for being treated alike on the question SISIR KUMAR MOI-IANTY v. STATE [UMESI-1 C. BANERJEE, J. ]' 993 __,..

of equal pay for equal work despite belonging to a separate cadre : We are, A )lowever, not expressing any opinion in that regard neither any observation made hereinbefore in this judgment should be taken to mean expression of any opinion in that regard. ' Re: WP (c) No. 692 of 1993 B In the view as has been expressed in this judgment, Writ Petition (c) No. 692 of I993 stands dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. This order of dismissal, however, shall also be subject to the liberty as granted by this court earlier and noticed hereinbefore. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. T. N. A. Appeal and Petition dismissed. • I' .