"Orissa High Court Sets Aside Government Order Freezing OPEPA Salaries: ‘Legality Questionable’ and Procedurally Inconsistent"
Kiran Raj
The Odisha High Court, Single Bench of Justice Murahari Sri Raman, adjudicated a writ petition concerning the remuneration freeze affecting contractual employees under the Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority (OPEPA), now known as the Odisha School Education Programme Authority (OSEPA). The petition was filed by Bishwaranjan Pradhan, Senior Technical Consultant at the District Project Office, Samagra Shiksha, Puri, and Sangran Keshari Prusty, Technical Consultant at the District Project Office, Samagra Shiksha, Jagatsinghpur. They challenged the State Government’s decision, communicated through Office Order No.16057, dated 01.08.2019, which froze their remuneration at the existing level from March 31, 2019.
The petitioners sought the quashing of this order. They submitted: “Under these facts and circumstances it is most humbly prayed therefore that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash Order No. 16057, dated 01.08.2019 at Annexure-17 passed by Special Secretary to Government, School and Mass Education, Odisha wherein it has been directed to freeze the existing remuneration of the members of the petitioner-association at the current level with effect from 31.03.2019.”
The Court examined the historical structure of remuneration under OPEPA. It referred to the decision of the 30th Executive Committee Meeting held on 06.03.2014, which stated: “The employees engaged under OPEPA Project Management Heads at State and District level are availing Base Pay + GP + DA + Other allowances as available to their counterpart at Government level as per the decision of 30th Meeting of EC, OPEPA held on 06.03.2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2014. They are also drawing the enhanced DA as enjoyed by Government employees from time to time.”
The Court noted that previous revisions to the remuneration structure had been made in consultation with the Finance Department. It examined the 23rd Executive Committee Meeting held on 05.12.2006, which reviewed pay structures in alignment with the Odisha Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1998. The meeting minutes recorded: “The Sub-Committee perused the Service Rules & Regulations 1996 of OPEPA and proceedings of the 15th Executive Committee meeting and found that posts were not created at the time of finalization of Service Rules & Regulations, 1996 of OPEPA. Considering the workload & business of OPEPA, the Executive Committee considered creation of above posts and finalized consolidated pay against each post.”
The Court also referred to the 36th Executive Committee Meeting of OPEPA held on 21.03.2018, where a proposal was discussed regarding salary enhancement. The Committee had stated: “The remuneration of contractual employees of the State Project Office and the District Project Office under the Project Management Head has been revised under the ceiling limit of management cost of AWP & Budget 2014-15 duly approved by PAB, MHRD, Government of India, New Delhi, vide Office Order No.7970/Estt./14, dated 20.09.2014.”
The petitioners contended that the Executive Committee had the authority to determine remuneration. They referred to Regulation 45(a) of the Memorandum of Association, which states: “Scale of pay in respect of posts to be created by the Executive Committee shall correspond either to the Central Government or State Government Scale of Pay.”
The Court examined the validity of the order freezing salaries. It recorded: “The Executive Committee’s decision regarding remuneration of employees was taken after due consultation with the Finance Department and other key departments. The August 1, 2019, order does not disclose any consultation process, making its legality questionable.”
The judgment further addressed the financial aspects of the decision. The Court observed: “The financial implications of remuneration decisions had been placed before the Finance Department and considered before implementation. Any retrospective freezing of remuneration without citing specific financial concerns raises procedural inconsistencies.”
The Court examined whether the remuneration structure had been approved at the government level. It noted that representatives from the Finance Department had been present in prior Executive Committee meetings where these decisions were made. The judgment recorded: “Representatives of the Finance Department and the School and Mass Education Department were present. It is found that conscious decisions were taken at each level in the presence of representatives of the Finance Department besides other Departments.”
The Court also looked at financial planning for the remuneration structure. It recorded: “Necessary budgetary provision has already been made by the PAB, Government of India under SSA during 2017-18 following due procedure.”
The Court concluded: “this Court sets aside the Office Order dated 01.08.2019 (Annexure-17) issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of Odisha in Department of School and Mass Education.”
Finally, the Court stated: “Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Senior Advocate Budhadev Routray, assisted by Avijit Mishra.
For the State of Odisha: Additional Government Advocate Satyabrata Mohanty.
Case Title: Bishwaranjan Pradhan & Anr. v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.14619 of 2019
Bench: Justice Murahari Sri Raman
[Read/Download order]
