Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6904 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.12901 OF 2008)

  Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.       … Appellant

Versus

Khageswar Sundaray & Ors.                         … Respondents

O R D E R

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal against the order dated 18.12.2007  

of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in OJC  

No.5768 of 1994.

3.  The  facts  very  briefly  are  that  the  Orissa  State  

Electricity Board (for short ‘the OSEB’) decided in its  

meeting held on 02.05.1970 that Lower Division Clerks  

(for short ‘the LDCs’) in the Circles, Divisions and Sub-

Divisions of  the OSEB shall  be granted two advance  

increments  in  the  time-scale  of  pay  attached  to  the

post  on  their  becoming  graduates  while  in  service.  

Accordingly,  an  office  order  was  passed  by  the  

Secretary of the OSEB on 17.06.1970 and LDCs of the  

OSEB would be granted two advance  increments on  

their  becoming  graduates  while  in  service.   On  

03.10.1970,  a Tripartite  Settlement was entered into  

by  the  OSEB  with  the  Employees  Unions  regarding  

revision of wages of the employees of the OSEB and on  

30.06.1971 an office order was issued by the Secretary  

of the OSEB giving the details of the revised scales of  

pay,  dearness  allowance  and  house  rent  allowance  

admissible  to  the  employees  of  the  OSEB  as  on  

01.04.1969.  Thereafter  in  terms  of  settlement  dated  

03.10.1970,  the  OSEB  constituted  an  Anomaly  

Committee which was to examine  inter alia the issue  

with  regard  to  advance  increments  in  the  revised  

scales  of  pay  for  employees  who  became  graduates  

while  in  service.   The  Anomaly  Committee  

recommended  inter  alia that two advance increments  

which  were  given  to  LDCs  working  in  the  different  

Circles,  Divisions and Sub-Divisions of  the  OSEB in  

2

the Pre-revised scale of Rs.80-135 may be given such  

advance increments in the revised scale of pay when  

the  employees  become  graduates  or  pass  Accounts  

Examinations  on  or  before  30.06.1971  and  such  

advance  increments  may  not  be  given  to  those  

employees  who  become  graduates  or  pass  Accounts  

Examinations  subsequent  to  30.06.1971.   The  

recommendations  of  the  Anomaly  Committee  were  

considered  by  the  OSEB  in  its  meeting  held  on  

12.05.1973  and  the  OSEB  accepted  the  

recommendations  of  the  Anomaly  Committee  saying  

that the employees, who graduated or passed Accounts  

Examinations  on  or  before  30.06.1971,  would  be  

eligible for such two advance increments.  The decision  

of  the  OSEB  was  followed  by  a  Circular  dated  

16.07.1973 clearly saying that the benefit of advance  

increments shall be allowed in the revised pay-scale to  

the employees who have graduated or have passed the  

Accounts Examinations on or before 30.06.1971.  The  

respondent  Nos.1  to  5,  who  have  been  working  as  

LDCs  under  the  OSEB,  passed  the  graduate  

3

examinations in the years 1974, 1975 and 1976 and  

were  not  granted  two  advance  increments  by  the  

OSEB.

4. Aggrieved,  the  respondent  Nos.1  to  5  filed  a  writ  

petition  before  the  Orissa  High  Court  being  OJC  

No.1428 of 1979 and the writ petition was disposed of  

by  the  High  Court  with  a  direction  to  the  OSEB to  

dispose of the representations of the respondent Nos. 1  

to 5.  Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the  

OSEB  rejected  the  representations.   Thereafter,  

respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed another writ petition being  

OJC  No.2237  of  1981  claiming  two  advance  

increments.   The  OSEB in  its  counter-affidavit  filed  

before  the  High  Court  stated  that  the  earlier  

notification  of  1970  under  which  two  advance  

increments were given to employees of the OSEB who  

graduated while in service had been withdrawn.  The  

High  Court  in  its  order  dated  12.04.1989  held  that  

since the basis of the relief claimed by respondent Nos.  

1 to 5 was the notification of  1970 which had been  

withdrawn, the High Court cannot grant any relief to  

4

the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 but reserved liberty to the  

said  respondents  to  challenge  the  legality  of  the  

decision  of  the  OSEB taken  in  its  meeting  held  on  

12.05.1973  confining  the  benefit  of  advance  

increments  to  those  employees  who  had  become  

graduates  or  passed  Accounts  Examinations  on  or  

before 30.06.1971.  The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed a  

fresh writ petition being OJC No.5768 of 1994 praying  

for quashing the decision of the OSEB in 1973 and the  

office order dated 16.07.1973 confining the benefit of  

advance increments in the revised scales of pay to the  

employees who graduated or had passed the Accounts  

Examinations on or before 30.06.1971.

5. The High Court  allowed  the  writ  petition  being OJC  

No.5768  of  1994  by  the  impugned  order  dated  

18.12.2007.  In the impugned order, the High Court  

observed  that  respondent  Nos.  1  to  5  will  get  the  

benefit of only Rs.6/- in their monthly pay.  The High  

Court held that other employees similarly placed like  

the respondent Nos.1 to 5 had been given the benefit  

and  there  should  not  have  been  any  discrimination  

5

and they should not have been denied the same benefit  

of two advance increments.  The High Court also held  

that the proceedings of the meeting of the OSEB held  

on  12.05.1973  in  which  the  decision  to  grant  two  

advance  increments  to  the  employees  who  had  

graduated or had passed the Accounts Examinations  

on or before 30.06.1971 did not disclose any reason,  

far less any justifiable reason, to confine the benefit of  

the  two  advance  increments  only  to  the  employees  

fulfilling the criteria by a cut-off  date and hence the  

decision of the OSEB was arbitrary.  The High Court  

accordingly quashed the decision of the OSEB taken  

on 12.05.1973 so far as respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were  

concerned and directed that two advance increments  

be notionally given to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in their  

Pre-revised scale of pay with effect from the respective  

dates  they  acquired  the  degree  qualifications  in  the  

year 1974-1976 and on that basis fix their current pay  

and pay their  current  salary  accordingly.   The High  

Court, however, observed that the impugned order will  

6

be confined to only respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and shall  

not be a precedent for others.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we  

find  that  in  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  of  the  

OSEB held on 12.05.1973, it is stated that the Wage  

Board Award recommending revised scales of pay was  

not clear if the advance increments were to continue  

and  the  Anomaly  Committee  after  considering  the  

matter had recommended that the benefit of advance  

increments  should  be  given  to  employees  who  

graduated or passed the Accounts Examinations on or  

before 30.06.1971 and that those who have passed the  

concerned  examinations  after  this  date  shall  not  be  

eligible  for  this  benefit.   In  the  proceedings  of  the  

meeting of the OSEB held on 12.05.1973 it was also  

made  clear  that  the  OSEB  accepted  the  

recommendations  of  the  Anomaly  Committee  not  to  

allow  advance  increments  in  the  case  of  employees  

who had obtained the degree or passed the Accounts  

Examinations  subsequent  to  30.06.1971.   If  

respondent  Nos.  1  to  5  desired  to  challenge  this  

7

decision of the OSEB as arbitrary and discriminatory,  

they should have placed sufficient materials before the  

court  to  demonstrate  that  the  cut-off  date  of  

30.06.1971 adopted by the OSEB was arbitrary and  

discriminatory and that the decision of the OSEB was  

violative  of  Article  14  of  the  Constitution.   In  the  

impugned order,  the  High Court  has not  referred to  

any  such  materials  and  has  instead  held  that  the  

proceedings  of  the  meeting  of  the  OSEB  did  not  

disclose any reason, far less any justifiable reason, to  

confine  the  benefit  of  two  advance  increments  to  

employees  who  graduated  or  passed  the  Accounts  

Examinations on or before 30.06.1971.

7. We are of the considered opinion that the view taken  

by the High Court that in the absence of any reason  

given by the decision of the OSEB in its meeting held  

on 12.05.1973 to fix the cut-off date of 30.06.1971 for  

becoming  a  graduate  or  passing  the  Accounts  

Examinations for an employee to be entitled to the two  

advance  increments,  its  decision  was  arbitrary  and  

discriminatory is not sustainable in law.  The OSEB as  

8

the employer was fully with its powers to decide the  

cut-off date for the employee to become a graduate or  

passing  the  Accounts  Examinations  to  be  eligible  to  

the  two advance  increments in  the  revised scales  of  

pay and the decision of the OSEB could not be held to  

be arbitrary only because the reason for decision was  

not  stated  in  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  of  the  

OSEB in which the decision was taken.  This Court in  

State  of  Bihar  and  Others vs.  Ramjee  Prasad  and  

Others [(1990) 3 SCC 368] held:  

“the choice of date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary  even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the  same  unless  it  is  shown  to  be  capricious  or  whimsical or wide off the reasonable mark”.   

8. In  a  recent  case  in  National  Council  for  Teacher  

Education and Others vs.  Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan  

Sansthan  and Others [(2011) 3 SCC 238] this Court after  

referring  to  various  earlier  authorities  on  the  point  in  

Sushma Sharma  (Dr.) vs.  State  of  Rajasthan [1985  supp.  

SCC 45], UGC vs. Sadhana Chaudhary [(1996) 10 SCC 536],  

Ramrao vs.  All  India  Backward  Class  Bank  Employees  

Welfare Association [(2004) 2 SCC 76] and  State of Punjab  

9

vs. Amar Nath Goyal [(2005) 6 SCC 754] has reiterated this  

position of law and has held the cut-off dates specified in  

clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation 5 of the National Council  

for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)  

Regulations, 2007 to be valid.

9. We,  therefore,  allow  this  appeal  and  set  aside  the  

impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court  

and dismiss the writ petition of respondent Nos. 1 to 5.  

There shall be no order as to costs.

.……………………….J.                                                             (R. V. Raveendran)

………………………..J.                                                             (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, August 11, 2011.   

1