A Person Performing Higher Duties Cannot Be Paid for a Lower Post: Orissa High Court Orders Reconsideration of Widow Employee’s Regularisation as Cashier Instead of Peon

“After extracting service in a higher post for two decades, denying regularisation in that post is arbitrary and unjust” - Orissa High Court strongly reiterating the principle of equal pay for equal work, and setting aside the bank’s decision to regularise a widow employee as a peon despite her continuous service for over 24 years as Cashier in-Charge. 
 Justice Murahari Sri Raman, allowing the writ petition, held that the United Puri-Nimapara Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Had committed a grave error by ignoring the petitioner’s long-standing performance, eligibility, and a favourable report from her superior and instead regularising her in a post lower than the one she had actually served in. 
“A person, who performs the duties of higher office, must get the salary/scale of pay attached to the post. He cannot waive off his fundamental/legal right to get the higher salary/scale of pay.” 
Court Condemns Arbitrary Regularisation Despite 24 Years of Unblemished Service 
 The Court noted that Tilottama Baliarsingh was appointed as a temporary peon under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme following the death of her husband, who was a Branch Manager. However, she was soon entrusted with the responsibility of Cashier in-Charge at the Mahila Branch by a formal order dated 09.10.2001. 
Since then, she had been continuously functioning as a Cashier, but the bank, by Order dated 29.10.2011, regularised her only as peon in the lowest grade. 
 The Court found such regularisation “bereft of reason, irrational and contrary to this Court’s earlier direction” issued in W.P.(C) No.1447 of 2005, where the Bank had been specifically directed to take a decision on her regularisation “on the basis of the report submitted by the Branch Manager.” 
The Court noted:  “Though Order dated 29.10.2011 of the Secretary-opposite party No.4 regularising the service of the petitioner in the post of peon is stated to have been passed to give effect to decision taken vide Resolution dated 13.10.2010 of the Board of Management, it is apparent that the direction of this Court in Order dated 26.07.2011 could not have been taken care of.” 
The High Court was scathing in its criticism of the Bank’s inaction: “After exploiting the service of the petitioner in the higher post with pay attached to the lower grade for more than two decades, it is construed that the action of the opposite parties is arbitrary and it would be harsh to direct the petitioner to be regularised in the post of peon.” 
     
 1984 Rules Govern the Case—Not 2011 Policy 
The Bank had sought to justify its decision based on the 2011 Staff Service Rules, but the Court held that the case had to be evaluated under the Central Cooperative Banks’ Staff Service Rules, 1984, which were applicable at the time of the Board Resolution dated 13.10.2010. 
The Court reasoned:  “The Rules, 2011 was not in vogue as on the date of Board’s decision. Hence, the contention of the opposite party No.4 that the petitioner had no requisite qualification for being considered to be regularised in the post of ‘Cashier’ in consonance with the Rules, 2011 falls flat.” 
It further held:  “Rule 8 of the Rules, 1984, being a non-obstante clause, permits appointment of a widow in any post befitting her qualification, subject to the position of vacancy.” 
The petitioner was a matriculate with over six years of experience, satisfying the eligibility criteria under Rule 7 of the 1984 Rules for appointment as Cashier. The Court observed that this was never disputed by the bank. 
“It is unambiguous that the petitioner was matriculate and had more than six years of experience. As per Rule 7 of the Rules, 1984, the qualification for selection for the post of ‘Cashier’ inter alia was ‘matriculate with six years’ experience’ having good career and clean service records.” 
Court Finds the Bank Ignored Factual and Legal Duties 
Justice Murahari Sri Raman was particularly critical of the lack of application of mind by the Bank and its failure to even consider the Branch Manager’s performance report, which had praised the petitioner’s honesty, arithmetic precision, and helpfulness toward illiterate customers. 
“The impugned Order does not disclose reason for consideration of the case of the petitioner for regularisation in service of ‘peon’ but not ‘Cashier’ notwithstanding fact that she was entrusted to function as Cashier in-Charge.” 
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Dharam Pal (2017) 9 SCC 395, affirming that an employee cannot be deprived of the pay of the higher post if they discharge its duties continuously. 
“She is entitled to financial benefits attached to the higher post. The fact remains, the petitioner has already worked for more than 24 years by now as Cashier without blemish.” 
It further observed:  “An employee cannot be deprived of her right to get higher salary if she discharges the duties of a higher office. Equal pay for equal work is not a mere incantation but a constitutional obligation.” 
 
Rejecting the argument that the petitioner should have approached the Registrar under Section 68 of the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, the Court held:  “This being the second round of litigation, the petitioner may not be directed to avail alternative remedy... The basic facts required for consideration of the case are not in dispute.” 
The Court noted the delay and injustice suffered by the petitioner since 2005:  “She had to wait for around 6 years for disposal of the first petition and has been waiting since 2011 in the present writ petition. It would be harsh to ask her to begin afresh now.” 
Quashing the Order No.3432 dated 29.10.2011, the Court directed:  “The competent authority of the United Puri-Nimapara Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in the post of Cashier in terms of the observations made in this judgment.” 
It added: “In the event of favourable consideration, the petitioner shall be entitled to higher scale of pay attached to the post of Cashier.” 
The Court directed that the entire exercise be completed within three months.
This ruling reaffirms a fundamental proposition of Indian service law—that longstanding discharge of duties in a higher post cannot be brushed aside when it comes to regularisation or pay determination. It sends a strong message against arbitrary decisions that disregard both merit and fairness, particularly when involving widows and dependants under rehabilitation schemes. 
 
Date of Decision: 15 April 2025