M. S. Raman, J
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition with the following prayer(s):-
“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to :-
i) Admit the writ application;
ii) Call for the records;
iii) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp.Parties to show cause as to why the remuneration fixed in case of the Accountants working in the District Project Offices
like the petitioners shall not be modified to the extent that the remuneration of the petitioners to be enhanced to Rs.7,500/- + HRA as has been fixed in case of
Accountants of State Project office;
iv) And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient or false cause this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions directing the Opp.Parties to fix the remuneration of the petitioners at par with the remuneration of
the Accountants working in the State Project Office and accordingly the remuneration to be fixed at Rs.7,500/- + HRA instead of Rs.6000/- + HRA and the order
at Annexure-4 may kindly be modified accordingly in case of the Accountants working in the District Project Offices including the petitioners;
v) And issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order/orders, direction/directions in directing the opposite parties more particularly, the
opposite party no.2 to allow the consolidated remuneration to the petitioners who are working as Accountants in the District Project Offices @ Rs.7,500/- + HRA
i.e. at par with the remuneration fixed for the Accountants working in the State Project Office with revised consolidated remuneration as has been enhanced from
time to time;
vi) And/or pass any such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice;â€
3. Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that identical issue has already been decided by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 02.08.2023 in a batch of writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(C) No.20940 of 2020 and etc. (Purna Chandra Bag &
others v. State of Odisha & others). He has placed reliance on the following paragraphs of the said judgment:-
“8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the Executive Committee in its 26th
meeting held on 16.02.2010 though approved for creation of the posts of Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator to be filled up at the block level, but the said post
was designated as Accountant-cum-Support Staff by the Opp. Party No.2 while issuing the communication dt.07.02.2011 under Annexure-1. Basing on the said
communication though it is not disputed that all the petitioners were engaged as Accountant-cum-Support Staff at the block level pursuant to the advertisement
issued by the concerned Collector-cum-Chairman, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan in different districts, but taking into account the qualification prescribed for Accountant
at the block level and that of the Accountant engaged in the State Project office and District Project Office, this Court is of the view that the qualification
prescribed for engagement of the Accountants at the block level as well as in the district level and State level are similar. It is also found from the record that as
per Regulation-45(a) of the 1996 regulation, it has been clearly provided that the Scale of Pay in respect of the post to be created by the Executive Committee
shall correspond either to the Central Government or State Government scale of pay. It is also found from the record that the Executive Committee in its 30th
meeting held on 06.03.2014 vide Item No.6.4 also approved to extend the benefit enjoyed by the different employees as per OPEPA Employees Service Rules and
Regulations 1996 to the block level Accountant engaged at BRCs level.     Â
8.1. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Regulation-45(a) of the Rules & Regulation,1996 and the decision taken by the Executive
Committee in the proceeding of the 30th meeting held on 06.03.2014, the rejection of the claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of pay parity with
that of the Accountants working in the State level and District level as per the considered view of this Court is not legal and justified. Therefore, this Court is
inclined to quash the said rejection made by Opp. Party No.3 vide order dt.10.07.2020, which is impugned in WP(C ) No.20940 of 2020 and quash the same.
8.2. However, taking into account the submissions made by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.3 that unless funds allocated by the Central
Government and State Government at the ratio of 60:40% is enhanced suitably, Opp. Party No.3 is not in a position to consider the claim of the Petitioners, this
Court while disposing the Writ Petitions directs Opp. Party No.3 to reconsider the demand of the Petitioners and after such reconsideration, Opp. Party No.3 is
directed to make necessary demand before the Central Government as well as the State Government for allocation of the required fund as per the available ratio.
It is directed that Opp. Party No.3 shall re-consider the demand and make necessary claim before the Central Government as well as the State Government for
allocation of funds within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. It is further directed that on receipt of such demand from Opp. Party
No.3, both Opp. Party Nos.2 & 4 shall take a lawful decision with regard to allocation of further fund on such demand so made by Opp. Party No.3 within a
period of two(2) months from the date of receipt of such demand.
8.3. Since it is the view of this Court that the Petitioners working at block level are doing similar nature of duty as that of the Accountants working in the District
level and State level with similar qualification, the said fact is to be borne in mind by both Opp. Party No.3 as well as by Opp. Party Nos.2 & 4 while taking a
decision as directed hereinabove.
9. All the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.â€
4. Mr. S.N. Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite party no.1 and Mr. Pronaya Kumar Mohanty, learned
counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 have submitted that the instant matter can also be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and taking into account the nature of prayer(s) made, this writ petition
stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of Purna Chandra Bag & others (supra). Accordingly, this Court
directs the opposite parties to re-consider the claim of the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of the certified
copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
......…………………………
