The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 24404 of 2012 An application under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Dr. Ganesh Prasad Tripathy ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. S.B. Jena, A. Mishra, S. Soren and S. Dash, Advocates For Opp. Parties : Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 6th March, 2023 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Sahitya in Ramdhin Sanskrit College, Berhampur in the district of Ganjam on 01.09.1973. Such appointment was approved by the Director vide order dated 17.04.1974. After introduction of the 10+2+3 pattern of education, +3 courses, i.e., Shastri course received concurrence from the Page 1 of 10 State Government from the session 1987-88. Thus, the college became an aided college and received concurrence and affiliation prior to 01.04.1989. By a Resolution dated 06.10.1989 of the Government in the erstwhile Education & Youth Services Department, the pay scale of teachers in colleges was revised as per UGC scale. The said Resolution provided the applicability of the UGC pay scale to the full time teachers working in different educational institutions. The petitioner’s case is that despite being eligible, the benefits of the Resolution were not extended to him. It is his further case that Lecturers teaching similar courses in general streams in Government and non-Government Degree Colleges as well as in Sadasiv Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapitha, Puri and in Jagannath Sanskrit University, Puri are also receiving UGC scale. The petitioner, while working as Lecturer in Sahitya was also approved as the regular Principal of the said college by order dated 28.11.1997. The petitioner’s post was approved by the State Government in the scale of pay of Rs.1350-2975/- with effect from 01.01.1985 and as such he claims to be entitled to receive revised scale of pay of Page 2 of 10 Rs.2200-4000/-with effect from 01.01.1986. Ventilating his grievance, the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No.3155 of 1999. By order dated 26.03.2011, the matter was transferred to the State Education Tribunal for adjudication whereupon it was renumbered as G.I.A. Case No. 166 of 2011. The State took a stand before the Tribunal that there is no mention in the Resolution dated 06.10.1989 to extend the benefit in favour of teachers Sanskrit Colleges. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions and the fact that the Government had decided to extend the benefit of UGC scale of pay to the eligible Lecturers of Sanskrit Colleges held that there is no scope for the State Government to deprive the petitioner from his entitlement. Accordingly, by judgment dated 05.07.2012, the Tribunal directed the authorities to release UGC scale of pay in favour of the petitioner within a period of three months subject to fulfillment of the criteria for the same. Pursuant to such order of the Tribunal, the Government in the department of Higher Education by order dated 14.11.2012, rejected the claim Page 3 of 10 of the petitioner for UGC scale of pay on the following grounds:- “2. Whereas para 3.3.1 of the said Resolution speaks that revision of scale of pay as per UGC guidelines shall be limited to general colleges and College of Accountancy and the said Management Studies. Further Resolution does not speak of extension of benefit of UGC scale of pay to the teachers of aided Non-Government Sanskrit Colleges and Tolls which are coming under the category of Special Education and different from direct payment system. 3. Whereas on detailed analysis of the issued raised by the petitioner on the fact of the provisions of State Government Resolution dated 06.10.1989 it was found that the claim of the petitioner for extension of UGC scale of pay benefit cannot be accommodated within the provisions of Resolution dated 06.10.1989 in view of restrictions imposed at para 3.3.1of such resolution.” Being aggrieved, the petitioner has again approached this Court in the present writ petition. 2. The opposite parties have filed counter reiterating the stand that para-3.3.1 is limited in its application to general Colleges and college of Accountancy and Management Studies and that the same does not speak of extension of the benefit to aided non-Government Sanskrit Colleges and tolls which are coming under the category of Page 4 of 10 special education, different from direct payment scheme. In addition it is stated that the petitioner is otherwise not eligible for receiving UGC scale of pay. 3. Heard Mr. S.B. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 4. Referring to the judgment of the Tribunal, it is contended by Mr. Jena that the order of the Tribunal is very clear and the only thing that the Government was required to do was to see whether the petitioner fulfills the criteria presented for receiving UGC scale of pay. However, it is not open to the authorities to go beyond the Tribunal’s order, once the same has become final. Mr. Jena has further referred to the Resolution dated 06.10.1989 to argue that it covers all affiliated Government colleges and aided non-Government colleges and therefore, it is entirely wrong on the part of the authorities to hold otherwise. Mr. Jena further submits that the reference to extension of such benefits to the college of Accountancy and Management Studies, Cuttack is in addition to the affiliated Government colleges and Page 5 of 10 aided non-Government Colleges. There is nothing in the Resolution to show that the Sanskrit Collages are to be excluded from its purview. 5. Mr. B.P. Tripathy has opposed the contentions of Mr. Jena by submitting that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the order under Annexure-13 passed by the State Government gives rise to a fresh cause of action for which the petitioner should have approached the Tribunal again challenging the same. Mr. Tripathy also argues that the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria for being extended the benefits of UGC scale of pay. As such, it is submitted that the writ petition is without any merit. 6. The basic facts of the case are not disputed. It is seen that the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 05.07.2012 allowed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of UGC scale of pay ‘subject to fulfillment of the criteria’. It is not in dispute that the said judgment was never challenged by the State in appeal. As such, the judgment has become final. The only rider in the judgment is ‘subject to fulfillment of criteria’. This obviously means the criteria Page 6 of 10 laid down for eligibility to receive UGC scale of pay of the individual teacher concerned. In so far as the Resolution dated 06.10.1989 is concerned, paragraph-3 reads as follows: of on the basis “3. The question of Revision of Pay Scale for College Teachers the recommendation of Government of India was under consideration of Government for some time past. After careful consideration the State Government have been pleased to decide to implement the scheme of Revision of Pay Scale of College Teachers with the following terms and conditions.” 7. The institutions covered under the resolution are narrated under paragraph- 3.1, which reads as follows:- “3.1. Coverage-The revised scales and other measures for improvement of standards in High Education shall be applicable to all categories of full time Teachers working in all affiliated non- Government Colleges Government colleges either covered or eligible to be covered under direct payment scheme till the 1st April, 1989. The scheme will also be extended to full time eligible Teachers working in the College of Accountancy and Management Studies, Cuttack.” aided and There is no dispute that Ramadhin Sanskrit College, Berhampur is an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section-3(b) of the Odisha Page 7 of 10 Education Act. The explanation to Section-3 reads as follows:- “Explanation- An Educational Institution imparting Shastri Upashastri, Madhyama and Prathama courses of Shri Jagannath Sanskrit University shall be deemed to be a College, a Higher Secondary School/Junior College a High School and an Upper primary School respectively for the purposes of the Act.” The expression ‘in all affiliated Government colleges and aided non-Government colleges either covered or eligible to be covered under direct payment scheme till 1st April, 1989’, would obviously take in its sweep an institution like the petitioner’s. The reference to college of Accountancy and Management Studies, Cuttack is undoubtedly in evidently in addition to the extension of such benefit to the colleges referred above. The Ramdhin Sanskrit College received concurrence from the academic session 1987-88, which is prior to 01.04.1989. Thus, this Court finds the college to be squarely covered under Paragraph-3.3.1 of the Resolution dated 06.10.1989. A perusal of the impugned order under Annexure -13 would reveal that the Resolution has been interpreted in a manner limiting its application to only general colleges Page 8 of 10 and college of Accountancy and Management Studies. In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, such an interpretation is obviously wrong. Moreover, only because the resolution does not specifically refer to Sanskrit Colleges and Tolls does not take such institutions away from its purview in view of the specific language of the Resolution referred to hereinbefore. This Court, therefore, holds that the impugned order is nothing but a product of misconception and erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Resolution in question and hence, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Of course this Court would hasten to add that the question of eligibility of the petitioner to be extended UGC scale of pay is a matter to be decided by the authorities depending on the requirement of the Resolution as regards qualification and experience etc. In fact, this is what the Tribunal obviously meant by mentioning subject to fulfillment of criteria in its judgment. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order under Annexure-13 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties-authorities are directed to take a Page 9 of 10 decision with regard to the petitioner’s case as directed by the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order or on production of certified copy thereof by the petitioner and if found eligible, to grant him actual benefits within a further period of two months. ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 6th March, 2023/ B.C. Tudu, B.C. Tudu Page 10 of 10