Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

BASUDEV PATI versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

Decided
3 March 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 637 · 1997 INSC 221
Also cited as
  • (1997) 3 SCC 632 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This special leave petition is filed against the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack passed on December 6, 1996, in Transfer Application No. 610/87.

p. 637, margin F

Admittedly, the petitioner, while working as a Lecturer, had appeared in competitive examination and was selected to the Orissa Administrative Service. As Orissa Administrative Service, Class-II, his scale of pay was Rs. 525-1150. Earlier, also when he worked as Lecturer, the scale of pay was Rs. 525-1150 which was subsequently revised by the University Grants Commission w.e.f April 1, 1974 to Rs. 700-1600. In that pay scale, his pay fixed at Rs. 780. He was paid arrears of salary with retrospective effect from 1.1.1974. After he was selected and appointed to the Orissa Administrative Service, he sought protection of his last drawn pay and his upgraded fitment in the pay scale in the Orissa Administrative Service. The Tribunal has rejected the claim. Thus this special leave petition.

pp. 637–638, margin G

Shri Janaranjan Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that since the petitioner had been given the pay scale with ~etrospective effect from 1.1.1974, on his appointment to the Orissa Ade niinistrative Service, his last drawn pay need to be protected. As per the instructions of the Accountant General, his pay is entitled to be fixed at Rs. 780 in the pay scale in the service of Orissa Administrative Service. We find no force in the contention. The service as a Lecturer is entirely different from the service of the Orissa Administrative Service. Merely because he happened to work earlier as a Lecturer and in the same pay scale which was subsequently revised, he cannot be permitted to have the benefit of U.G.C. scale in the Administrative Service and fitment in the pay-scale on that basis. That would create imbalance and gross infraction and distortion and would result in flood of claims of similarly situated person under Article 39( d} of the Constitution. Under these circumstances, such a course cannot be permitted· to b~ adopted.

p. 638, margin A

The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 638, margin E