The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10252 of 2014 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ……………… Ajit Kumar Mishra …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : M/s. Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.K. Jee, Addl. Govt. Advocate. PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:21.03.2025 and Date of Judgment:21.03.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. // 2 // 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia with the following prayer:- writ/writs, order/orders “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate and direction/directions and direct the opp. parties more specifically the opp. party no.3 to release the arrear block grant of the petitioner in the untrained scale @ 4496/-from 1.1.2004 to 28.6.2010 and the enhance rate of block grant @ Rs.8000/- from 1.4.2013 to 9.3.2014 and further the block grant in the trained scale @ Rs.13,500/- the stipulated period of time as deem fit and proper. from onwards 10.3.2014 within And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that pursuant to the order passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) vide order dtd.03.02.2006 in GIA Case No.136 of 2004, further confirmed by this Court in its order dtd.25.09.2007 in W.P.(C) No.863 of 2007, Opposite Party No.3 initially vide office order dtd.28.06.2010 under Annexure-1 allowed the Petitioner to join in the School in question. While issuing such a direction, Opposite Party No.3 also held the Petitioner entitled to get block grant in the untrained scale of pay from the date he joins in duty. Page 2 of 30 // 3 // 4.1. It is contended that vide another office order issued on 29.06.2010 under Annexure-2 by Opposite Party No.3, appointment of the Petitioner was approved against a TGT post, so made by the Managing Committee of Jhadeswar Bidya pitha, Khanua w.e.f. 29.06.2010, but in the untrained scale of pay.
Legal Reasoning
dtd.25.09.2007 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.863 of 2007, taking into account the principle of doctrine of merger, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get all the benefits as prayed for in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 03.02.2006 in GIA Case No.136 of 2004 so confirmed by this Court in its order dtd.25.09.2007 in W.P.(C) No.863 of 2007. With regard to the principle of doctrine of merger, reliance was placed to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surendra Pal Sony vs. Sohanlala (dead) legal heir, reported in (2020) 15 SCC-771. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-14 & 15 of the said decision has held as follows:-
Arguments
4.2. It is contended that while so continuing as against a TGT post with receipt of untrained salary, Petitioner when acquired the B.Ed. qualification from IGNOU, the result of which was published on 10.03.2014, Opposite Party No.3 was moved by Opposite Party No.4 with a request to grant trained graduate scale of pay in favour of the Petitioner, vide letter dtd.29.04.2014 under Annexure-3-Series. 4.3. It is contended that on the face of such acquisition of training qualification with due recommendation made to grant TGT scale of pay vide letter dtd.29.04.2014 under Annexure-3-Series, when no further action was taken, the present Writ Petition Page 3 of 30 // 4 // was filed inter alia with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. 4.4. It is vehemently contended that since the services of the Petitioner was duly approved pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal so merged with order