B.P. Das, J.
1. In this writ application, the Petitioner prays for a direction to the Opposite Parties to sanction and disburse his pension at par with the State Government employees on the basis of the Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 (hereinafter 'the ORSP Rules, 1998') and further to pay the differential salary computed in terms of the ORSP Rules, 1998 which came into force with effect from 1.1.1996 so also the differential gratuity and leave salary.
2. The brief facts, as delineated in the writ application, tend to reveal as follows:
On 28.5.1974, the Petitioner joined as a regular Amin under the erstwhile Special Planning Authority, Rourkela, which was subsequently reconstituted under the Regional Improvement Trust Act with effect from 26.1.1976 as the Rourkela Improvement Trust.The State Government by virtue of the notification issued under Section 3(i) of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 (hereinafter 'the Act') constituted the Rourkela Development Authority (hereinafter 'the RDA') which incorporated the areas under the Rourkela Regional Improvement Trust. The Petitioner, who joined as an Amin under the Special Planning Authority, Rourkela, continued underthe RDA and ultimately retired from service with effect from 31.12.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though he retired from service with effect from 31.12.2001, he was not paid any pension and other retiral benefits for which he made a representation to the Secretary, RDA on 11.3.2002, the copy of whichis annexed hereto as Annexure-2 and its English translation is annexed hereto as Annexure-2/A.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the provisions made in the Act and submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to pension and the provident fund. The provisions of Section 83 of the Act are as follows:
83. Pension and provident fund.
(1) The Authority shall constitute for the benefits of its whole-time paid members and of its officers and other employees in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules such pensions and provident funds as it may deem fit.
(2) Where any such pension or provident fund has been constituted the State Government may declare that the provisions of the Provident Fund Act, 1925 (Act 19 of 1925) shall apply to such fund as if it were a Government provident fund.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that Section 83 of the Act is mandatory and requires the authorities to make arrangement for payment of pension and afford facilities of provident fund. Thus, there cannot be any escape from the obligation that the authorities under the Act must constitute such pension and provident fund. Payment of pension and making provision for provident fund are the statutory duties of the Development Authority. It was further submitted that before his retirement, the Petitioner had requested the authorities to take necessary steps for payment of pension and other retiral benefits including the revised scale of pay on the basis of which the RDA had addressed letter dated 25.9.2001 to the Secretary, Cuttack Development Authority (hereinafter 'CDA') vide Annexure-3, stating therein that the RDA had not accepted any Regulation fixing the conditions of service and grant of any financial benefit to its employees, but it was understood that Bhubaneswar Development Authority was extending differential financial benefits to its employees like gratuity, revised scale of pay under the ORSP Rules at par with the State Government employees. In the aforesaid letter, the RDA expressed its intention to extend similar benefits to its employees for which it asked for copies of such relevant documents from the CDA. The CDA in response to Annexure-3, indicated that the Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 were given effect to from 1.9.1999, but so far as gratuity and pension etc. are concerned, the same would be paid at par with the retired employees of the State Government pending finalisation of pension Rules of CDA. It is stated that the RDA in its 3rd meeting dated 12.12.1999 had resolved that it would implement the Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998 for its employees. Copy of the extract of the meeting dated 12.12.1999 is annexed to the writ application as Annexure-5. Basing upon the aforesaid annexures, the Petitioner submitted that he is entitled to receive the salary as per the ORSP Rules, 1998 which came into force with effect from 1.1.1996. The Petitioner claimed differential salary from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.2001, which should be computed as per the ORSP Rules, 1998. Further, Learned Counsellor the Petitioner submitted that though the Petitioner' retired on 31.12.2001, yet after one and half years, he was communicated with a letter dated 23.5.2003 issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Orissa (Annexure-6), in which it was indicated that the Petitioner would receive the pension @ Rs. 570 / - per month with effect from 1.1.2002, which was sanctioned under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1995. According to the Petitioner, if he would have been granted the benefits under the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, then the amount of pension would have been much higher inasmuch as the minimum pension fixed therein is Rs. 1 ,250/ - per month and otherwise the Petitioner is entitled to receive pension at par with the State Government employees underthe Pension Rules, 1992, inasmuch as his scale of pay had jpeen revised from time to time as per the Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules. It was further submitted that since the leave of the Petitioner had been sanctioned as per the Orissa Leave Rules and his increment had been fixed on the principles followed for the State Government employees, he is entitled to get the pension as per the Pension Rules, 1992.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew my attention to Annexure 7, which is an office order issued by the Secretary, RDA, indicating therein that the leave of the Petitioner had been sanctioned under the Orissa Leave Rules, 1966. Further the case of the Petitioner is that when the employees of CDA are receiving pension at par with the retired employees of the State Government as per the Pension Rules, 1992, ihere is no justification for the O.Ps. to deny the Petitioner to receive the pension as per the Pension Rules, 1992.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the RDA refuting the claim of the Petitioner and indicating therein that for fixation of pay of the employees of the RDA in the revised scale of pay under the ORSP Rules, 1998, a letter was issued on 17.12.1999 to the Director, Housing & Ex-Officio Joint Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department. In the said letter, which is extracted in the counter affidavit, request had been made to place the proposal of the Authority before the Hon'ble Minister for taking an early decision. It was admitted therein that in the 3rd Authority meeting of the RDA held on 12.12.1999 the Hon'ble Minister-cum-Chairman, RDA had agreed that if proposal would be processed to him by the Director, Housing, he would look into the same. The RDA in its counter affidavit has stated that no such approval had been received during the tenure of service of the Petitioner, for which, the Petitioner is not entitled to the claim made by him. According to the RDA, even though the RDA was constituted under the ODA Act, different Authorities under the said ODA Act are having different service -conditions for their respective staff depending upon their respective zone of operation and financial capacity.
6. Save and except stating the aforesaid facts and refuting the claim made by the Petitioner in the writ application, no case has been made out by the O.Ps. to refuse the claim of the Petitioner when the employees of CDA and BDA are getting the same benefit.
7. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner in which it is stated that the letter of the RDA to the Director, Housing & Ex-Officio Joint Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, which is extracted in the counter affidavit, would show that the RDA had resolved to adopt the ORSP Rules, 1998. In this regard, a further affidavit was also filed by the Secretary of the RDA indicating therein that the RDA in its 6th Authority meeting dated 31.1.2002 decided to adopt the ORSP Rules, 1998 from 1.1.1996 without any financial benefits till 31.1.2002 under Annexure 9; the notional calculation of increments and pay fixation under ORSP Rules, as on 1.2.2002, was communicated to one of the employees of the RDA; in its 7th Authority meeting held on 17.11.2004, it was decided to give 25% of the arrear dues under ORSP Rules to the employees of RDA; thereafter in the 8th Authority meeting held on 25.2.2005, it was decided to give rest 75% under the ORSP Rules to the employees of the RDA w.e.f. 1.1.1996 till 31.1.2002; and as such, the Petitioner who retired on 31.12.2001, is entitled to get that w.e.f. 1.1.1996 till 31.12.2001 subject to the final decision of the present proceeding, but the Petitioner is not entitled to get any other benefit as claimed by him.
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew my attention to the Judgment dated 29.10.1990 rendered in O.J C. No. 384 of 1990 Krupasindhu Barik v. State of Orissa and Ors. in which this Court dealt with a similar question and held as follow:
Payment of pension and making provision for provident fund are statutory duties of the Development Authority. The provisions are substantive and absolute. The framing of rules are merely procedural in nature so as to provide the manner in which and conditions under which the payment of pension is to be made and the provident fund is to be provided for. The right to pension and to the benefit of provident fund being statutory, the Court would undoubtedly have the jurisdiction to issue necessary direction for implementation of the provisions,
9. In view of the aforesaid decision and the resolution dated 12.12.1999 of the RDA in Annexure-5, the RDA cannot wriggle out of the commitments made and take a plea that the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit as claimed at a subsequent stage. That apart, it is indicated by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the CDA and the RDA having been constituted under the Orissa Development Authority Act when the CDA is extending the pension along with other pensionary benefits to its retired employees, which would be evident from Annexure-4, and the RDA in its letter dated 25.9.2001 vide Annexure-3 also expressed its intention to extend similar benefits to its employees, there is no reason as to why the Petitioner shall be deprived of the benefits as have been extended by the CDA and promised by the RDA at different points of time.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this writ application and direct the RDA to sanction and disburse the pension to the Petitioner at par with the State Government employees on the basis of the ORSP Rules, 1998 and other consequential financial benefits be made available to the Petitioner as per the said Rules within a period of six months from the date of communication of this Judgment.
There will be no order as to cost.