Chittaranjan Das v. State of Odisha and Others
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK A Batch of applications under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. WP(C) No.4312 of 2016 Sri Dolamani Meher ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ……. Opposite Parties WP(C) No.4313 of 2016 Sri Ashok Kumar Parida ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ……. Opposite Parties WP(C) No.4314 of 2016 Dr. (Smt.) Maitrirani Biswal ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ……. Opposite Parties WP(C) No.9711 of 2017 Smt. Kukumeena Mohanty ……. Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ……. Opposite Parties 2 ___________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate For Opposite Parties: Mr. D. Nayak, Addl. Govt. Advocate ___________________________________________________________ CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA THE HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 6th July, 2023 S. Talapatra, J. All these petitions are combined for disposal by a common Judgment in as much as the challenge in these writ petitions are identical, even the reliefs as sought are similar in nature. It has been stated at the outset by Mr. D Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite Parties that these writ petitions are covered by the Judgment dated 03.04.2023 as delivered in W.P.(C) No.8976 of 2017 Chittaranjan Das Vs. State of Odisha and Others. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate has further submitted that no new ground has been cited in these writ petitions. The grounds taken in these writ petitions are similar to the grounds of Chittaranjan Das Vs. State of Odisha and Others (supra). At the outset, we would like to introduce the facts as relevant for appreciation the challenge in each of the writ petitions. 3
Legal Reasoning
WP(C) No.4312 of 2016 [Sri Dolamani Meher Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.] 2. In the writ petition being WP(C) No.4312 of 2016, the petitioner namely, Sri Dolamani Meher was appointed as Lecturer in English on 18.09.1992, but his appointment was approved by the order contained in the letter No.56516/HE dated 16.8.1996. The petitioner was given grant-in-aid pay scale from 01.06.1994 even though his eligibility was determined on 01.06.1992. In view of the Judgment of this court in Akshya Kumar Beura Vs. Director Higher Education & Ors.: 1991 (II) OLR-87, the petitioner was brought to the common cadre of Lecturer of the aided college with effect from 01.06.1994, the very same day when the petitioner was brought under the grant-in-aid scheme. It is an admitted position that the Government of Odisha in exercise of their power conferred under sub-Section-1 of Section 10 of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 introduced the Orissa Non-government Aided Colleges Lecturers (Placement Rules), 2014 to regulate the placement of Lecturers of Non- government Aided Colleges borne in the different scale of pay: (i) Lecturers (Group-A) (ii) Readers (State Scale) 3. Rule 4 of the Placement Rules provides the eligibility criteria for placement which is reproduced hereunder: 4 “Eligibility Criteria for Placement:- (1) In order to be eligible for placement to the grade of Lecture (Group-A) scale of pay under rule 9, a lecturer as covered under rule-3 must have- (a) Completed at least 8 (eight) years of service as such from the approved date of joining, in case of SSB sponsored Lecturers/Junior Lecturers; (b) Completed at least 8 (eight) years of service from the date of receiving of full GIA in the post of Lecturer the management; in case of appointment by (c) Completed at least 8 (eight) years of service from the date of eligibility from full GIA in case of Lecturers whose services have been validated under the Validation Act; (d) Satisfactory performance as a Lecturer/Junior Lecturer supported with CCRs or ACRs by whatever name called. (2) A letter placed under Lecturer (Group-A) scale of pay under rule 9 in order to be eligible for consideration for placement to Reader (State Scale) scale of pay under rule 9, must have completed at least 10 years of continuous service in the said Lecturer (Group-A) scale of pay.” 4. It is apparent that Rule 4(1)(a) deals with the Lecturers appointed through State Selection Board (SSB). Rule 4(1)(b) deals with the Lecturers appointed by the concerned management whereas the Rule 4(1)(c) deals with the Lecturers whose services have been validated under the Validation Act. 5. According to the petitioner, Rule 4 of the Placement Rules, 2014 is in direct conflict with the constitutional mandate provided under 5 Articles 14 and 16 and the classification made on the basis of the source of appointment is grossly unsustainable in as much as once a Lecturer is brought into the fold of grant-in-aid, he becomes part of the common cadres of Lecturers. 6. By the order No.22523 dated 07.10.2015, it had been further communicated that a non-SSB Lecturer and a reader can get the benefits of Group-A Scale and the (State Scale), respectively after completion of 17 years and 27 years of continuous service from the approved date of joining. But the Lecturers who have been appointed through the SSB will get the same benefit after completion of 8 years and 18 years of continuous service from the approved date of joining. 7. According to the petitioner all these provisions are grossly arbitrary and against the equality clause. Hence, the petitioner has urged this court to declare that Rule 4(1) of the Placement Rule is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and hence, ultra vires to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. It has been urged to quash the order dated 07.10.2015 which is under Annexure-4 to the writ petition being WP(C) No.4312 of 2016. 8. It has been urged that the Opposite Parties be directed to that the Lecturers of the aided colleges at par with the Lecturers appointed through the SSB, meaning they shall be provided the Lecturer (Group-A) 6 after completion of 8 years of service from the approved date of initial joining and the scale of the Reader (State Scale) under 10 years of service in the grade of Lecturer (Group-A) with all consequential benefits. WP(C) No.4313 of 2016 [Sri Ashok Kumar Parida Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.] 9. In all the above writ petitions, grounds for challenge are similar to the writ petition being WP(C) No.4312 of 2016. The factual matrix which are relevant and asserted in the remaining writ petitions are noted below. 10. In the writ petition being WP(C) No.4313 of 2016, the petitioner namely, Sri Ashok Kumar Parida was appointed as the Lecturer in Commerce on 17.04.1991 and his appointment was approved by the Director of Higher Education by the office order No.9367 dated 27.02.1997. The petitioner was given the grant-in-aid scale w.e.f. 01.06.1994 though his eligibility was determined and fixed on 01.06.1992. It has been asserted that in Amit Kumar Pattnayak Vrs. State of Orissa & Others: 2013 (II) OLR-332 and in the case of Akshya Kumar Beura (supra) it has been held that the Lecturers who are appointed from the different sources become part of the same common cadre, the movement they are appointed as the Lecturer under the grant-in-aid rules. As such, no discrimination can be made between a Lecturer appointed by the management and the Lecturer appointed by the SSB. The other grounds are 7 exactly similar as taken in Dolamani Meher Vs. State of Odisha and Others. WP(C) No.4314 of 2016 [Dr. (Smt.) Maitrirani Biswal Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.] 11. In the writ petition being WP(C) No.4314 of 2016, the petitioner namely, Dr. (Smt.) Maitrirani Biswal was appointed as the Lecturer in Odia on 16.08.1982. Her appointment was approved by the department of Higher Education w.e.f. 01.06.1994. On the said date, the college namely, Biren Mitra Memorial Women’s College, Thoriasahi, Dist- Cuttack was brought under the grant-in-aid establishment. In this writ petition also, the classification in granting the Lecturer (Group-A Scale) and Readers (State Scale) has been challenged on the same set of grounds as noted. Reliefs are identical. Therefore, we refrain from lying down the details in each case. WP(C) No.9711 of 2017 [Smt. Kukumeena Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.] 12. In the writ petition being WP(C) No.9711 of 2017, the petitioner namely, Smt. Kukumeena Mohanty was appointed in the post of Lecturer in Zoology on 20.11.1989. Her appointment was approved by the department of Higher Education vide the office order No.51750 dated 24.12.2003. The petitioner has averred that when she was continuing as the Lecturer in Zoology w.e.f. 01.06.1994, the Government of Odisha, in 8 exercise of power under Section 10(1) of the Placement Rules had introduced certain provisions which are contrary to the equality clause of the Constitution. As we have reproduced Rule 4 before, we would like to refrain from making detailed reference to those rules. 13. The petitioners have asserted that they have been discriminated vis-(cid:224)-vis the Lecturers who were appointed by SSB. When their cases for upgradation to the Lecturer (Group-A) scale was considered, in Akshya Kumar Beura (supra) and Amit Kumar Pattnayak (supra) this court held that such classification is hostile and in contrast to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. When the persons who are appointed from different sources are brought into a common cadre, they cannot be discriminated on the basis of the source. Hence, interference of this court has been sought in the form of declaration that Rule 4(1) of the Placement Rules is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and hence, ultra vires. As consequence, it has been urged that the order 07.10.2015, Annexure-6 to
Decision
the writ petition being WP(C) No.9711 of 2017 be set aside. It would be apparent from the notification dated 04.06.2014 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) that the Placement Rules, 2014 has been given effect from 01.01.2014. The different grades as referred are carrying the pay scales, descriptions of which are given below: 9 “(i) Lecturers/Jr. Lecture -- Rs.9,300-34800/- + Grade Pay Rs.4,600/- getting full GIA (ii)Lecturers (Group-A) -- Rs.9,300-34800/- + Grade Scale)-- Pay Rs.5,400/-(iii)Readers Rs.9,300-34800/- + Grade Pay Rs.6,600/-” (State 14. We have perused the averments in the writ petition as well as in the reply filed by the Opposite Parties in WP(C) No.4312 of 2016 (Dolamani Meher Vs. State of Odisha and Others). Mr. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate has categorically stated that the stand of the State Opposite Parties is same in all the writ petitions. The said Opposite Parties have stated as under: “That, Govt. in Higher Education Department in exercise of powers conferred under Section-10(1) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 introduced the Orissa Non-Govt. Aided College Lecturers’ Placement Rules, 2014 to regulate the method of placement of lecturers/ Junior Lecturers of Non Govt. Aided Colleges, in different scale of pay. As per Rule- 1 (2) these Rules shall apply to the Lecturers/Junior Lecturers of Non-Govt. Aided Colleges receiving Grant-in- Aid in shape of full salary cost and as per Rule-3 these Rules shall apply to the Junior Lecturers/Lecturers in Non Govt. Aided Colleges who are in the pay scale of Rs.9,3000- 34,800/- with grade pay of Rs.4,600/- under ORSP Rules, 2008 before commencement of these Rules i.e. 01.01.2014.” 15. In sequel, the Opposite Parties have asserted that in case of a SSB sponsored Lecturer/ Junior Lecturer, he becomes eligible to receive the Grant-in-Aid full salary, as applicable to the Direct Payment (DP) vacant post immediately after the appointment. When he completes 8 years of service from the approved date of appointment then he becomes fit for 10 consideration for his movement to the Lecturer (Group-A Scale). On the other hand, in case of Lecturer whose services have been validated, they will be considered for placement in the grade of Lecturer (Group-A) after completing 17 years of service from the approved date of joining. 16. It has been categorically stated that the said benefits will be available to all w.e.f.01.01.2014. According to the Opposite Parties since the SSB is a statutory body like OPSC in terms of provisions of Section 10(2) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, the persons who are selected through the SSB are given the said advantage in order to recognize their merit. At the same time, it has not been denied that the petitioners are serving as the Lecturer since long even before their appointment under the Grant-in-Aid scale was made. 17. Therefore, only question which emerges for response is that when the petitioner’s appointment on recommendation is approved by the competent authority in the Higher Education Department, can they be subject to further classification for upgradation to the Lecturer (Group-A Scale) vis-(cid:224)-vis the Lecturer who has been appointed through SSB. This question has been considered in WP(C) No.8976 of 2017 titled as Chittaranjan Das Vs. State of Odisha & Others. In Chittaranjan Das (supra) we had occasion to observe as follows: 11 “15. According to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, the petitioner has been correctly given the placement as Lecturer (Group-A Scale) from 01.06.2012 by the Notification No.2354 dated 24.01.2017 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). No discrimination was meted out. The clarification is unambiguous and hence, no interference is called for. 16. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the said decision of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is grossly arbitrary and in contrast to Rule 4 (c) of the Placement Rules, in as much as the full salary cost of the petitioner was sanctioned at 100% GIA w.e.f. 23.05.1995, in the same manner as provided in the case of an SSB sponsored candidate under Rule 4 (1) (a) of the said Placement Rules. 17. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that as no distinction can be made between two classes of lecturers, there cannot be differential treatment. There is no distinction on the basis of qualification and the duties they are to discharge. The said order granting the pay scale of Lecturer (Group-A Scale) in favour of the petitioner from a posterior date deserves to be interfered with as that stands in contradiction to the equality clause. He has also contended that the petitioner is entitled to get the said benefit w.e.f. 01.06.2003, instead of 01.06.2012. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel has contended that by the executive order [Annexure-A] the basic provision of the 12 Rules cannot be truncated. If such attempts are made that will amount to overriding without exercising the rule making power. 18. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel has referred to a decision of this court in Akshaya Kumar Swain Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (Order dated 27.10.2005 delivered in OJC No.9242 of 2000). In that case, a lecturer in English was appointed by the Management of a Grant-in- Aid College and he was allowed to receive Grant-in-Aid Scale w.e.f. 04.11.1989. But the lecturers who were appointed on the basis of the selection made by the Service Selection Board (SSB) were granted the UGC scale of pay w.e.f. 01.04.1989. Those who were appointed by the Management, were not favoured with the said benefit. In this backdrop, it has been observed in Akshaya Kumar Swain (supra) as follows: “We are also not in a position to find any ground to deny such benefit to the petitioner. The ground for such denial only being that he was recruited by the Management. As the petitioner has satisfied the requirements so far as they relate the qualification in Annexure-3 and 5 and as there is nothing contrary to show in the record that the petitioner is not eligible to get grant-in-aid save and except saying that this is the reason he was recruited through the Governing Body, we are convinced that the petitioner shall be entitled to get the benefit as has been given to the similarly situated Lecturers like the ones sponsored by the Selection Board and adjusted against the direct payment post after 01.04.1989 as detailed in Annexure-4 to the application.” 13 [Emphasis Added] 19. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the centrality of controversy is identical and hence, the said principle will apply to the present case. Whether the clarification can take away the core of the principal clause or not, on that aspect, Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel has placed his reliance on a few decisions of the Apex Court. In V.B. Prasad Vs. Manager, P.M.D.U.P. School and Other: AIR 2007SC2053, the apex court has quite succinctly held that it is well settled principle of law that the note appended to a statutory provision or the subordinate legislation must be read in the context of the substantive provision and not in derogation thereof. Five years’ teaching experience for appointment to the post of Head Master in that case was a sine qua non. Such teaching experience was to be ‘teaching experience’ and not a deemed teaching experience. 20. We are persuaded to observe that the Opposite Parties even did not claim that the petitioner’s appointment was a deemed appointment w.e.f. 23.05.1995. As such, we do not find any relevance of the said report in the present context. However, what the Apex Court has observed in S. Sundaram Pillai Vs. V.R. Pattabiraman & Others; AIR 1985 SC 582 may have some ramification as in that report, 14 the Apex Court has interpreted various aspects viz. words and phrases including the explanation [in Para 45]. The apex court has dwelled on the impact of the Explanation on the proviso which deals with the question of wilful default. Before, we appreciate the said delicate question, we may appreciate the intent, purpose and legal effect of an Explanation. It is now well settled that an Explanation added to a statutory provision is not a substantive provision in any sense of the term, but it purports to explain or clarify certain ambiguities which may emerge from the statutory provision. 21. In Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer: (1961) 1 SCR 902: AIR 1961 SC 315, a Constitution Bench had occasion to observe as follows: “Now, the Explanation must be interpreted according to its own tenor, and it is meant to explain cl. (1)(a) of the Article and not vice versa. It is an error to explain the Explanation with the aid of the Article, because this reverses their roles.” 22. Thereafter, the Apex Court in S. Sudaram Pillai (supra) has enunciated the object of an Explanation to a statutory provision in the following terms: “(a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself. (b) where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to sub serve. 15 (c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful, (d) an explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment, and (e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same. Therefore, only when there is some ambiguity or get explanation may be the aid otherwise not, explanation is always subordinate to the main clause, it cannot alter or reverse the meaning of the main clause.” [Emphasis Added] 23. In order to repel the submission of Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. D. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has stated that by the Clarification, as embodied in the communications dated 07.10.2015 and 20.01.2016 (Annexures-A and B1 to the counter affidavit), it is intended to say that Lectures who are eligible for the post of Lecturer (Group-A Scale) and Reader (State Scale) prior to 01.01.2014, they can get the benefit notionally from the date of eligibility without any financial benefit. Their pay 16 will be fixed notionally from the date of eligibility up to 01.01.2014. It has been further clarified that a non-SSB lecturer can get the benefit of Lecturer (Group-A Scale) and Reader (State scale) under the Rules after completion of 17 years and 27 years of continuous service from the approved date of joining and an SSB lecturer can get the similar benefits after completion of 08 years and 18 years of continuous service respectively from the approved date of joining. The lecturers who were eligible for placement as Lecturer (Group-A Scale) and Reader (State Scale) prior to 01.01.2014, their pay will be fixed in the corresponding prevailing scale, but they will not be eligible to claim any arrear. 24. Mr. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate has drawn our further attention to the Clarification regarding interpretation of the Odisha Non- Government Aided College Lecturer Placement Rules, 2014, circulated by the Communication No.HE-FE-VI-PLAN- 126/2015 dated 07.10.2015, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Para-3 of the clarification is similar to the proposition as advanced by the explanation as aforestated [as reproduced in Para-8 before]. For that reason, no elaborate reference is made in respect of clarification dated 07.10.2015. 17 25. Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we would like to refer, at the threshold, to Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of service of Teachers and Members of Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974, whereby it is provided inter alia as follows: “(b) the vacancy in a post, carrying higher scale of pay, is filled up with prior approval of Government in case of a College and the concerned Director in case of an institution other than a college, by an employee of the same institution who possesses the prescribed qualifications and experience and whose performance in respect of the post he holds, has been found satisfactory. Such appointment shall be treated as regular appointment from the date, the same is filled up on ad hoc basis by the Managing Committee or the Governing Body, as the case may be, in the event of its approval by the competent authority.” 26. From the undisputed facts, we have seen that the petitioner was appointed as the Lecturer in Chemistry as he was found suitable. His qualification and experience conformed to the prescribed eligibility criteria. Thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Director of Higher Education, Government of Odisha. As such, his appointment has to be treated as the regular appointment w.e.f. 23.05.1995. Moreover, the Opposite Parties have not disputed that the petitioner had been 18 holding the post from the date of his appointment i.e. 23.05.1995. The petitioner has asserted that he has been discharging the duties of the Lecturer of Chemistry from 23.05.1995 to the entire satisfaction of the authority. Above all, by the Judgment dated 30.01.2012 delivered in G.I.A. Case No.189/2011, the State Education Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled to GIA full salary with effect from his initial date of appointment i.e. 23.03.1995. In compliance thereof, full GIA salary was paid to the petitioner. 27. There had been a judicial scrutiny and by the Judgment dated 30.01.2012, the State Education Tribunal had directed the Opposite Parties to release the full salary to the petitioner for the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 23.05.1995 as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the said order. The said order was never challenged by the Opposite Parties. Hence, this court cannot observe anything contrary to the finding as returned by the said Judgment dated 30.01.2012. Therefore, the only question that remains to be addressed to is whether the petitioner has conformed to the requirement of Rule-4(b) read with Explanation provided by the Rules called the Odisha Non-Government Aided College Lecturer Placement Rules, 2014. Rule 4 (b), op. cit., is according to us, the relevant rule for purpose of determining the relief as prayed by the petitioner in this writ petition. Rule 4 (b) provides that in order to be eligible for placement in the 19 grade of Lecturer (Group-A Scale under Rule-9), a lecturer covered by Rule 3 of the said Rules must have “completed at least 08 (eight) years of service from the date of receiving of full GIA in the post of Lecturer in case of appointment by the management.” 28. As stated, there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as the Lecturer in Chemistry by the Management and such appointment was approved by the Director of Higher Education, Government of Odisha. We find from the facts as averred in the writ petition that AS College was brought under the Grant-in-Aid rules much prior to the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Lecturer in Chemistry and the petitioner himself was enjoying the Grant-in-Aid (GIA) Scale in the post of Demonstrator. Reference has been made to Rule 4(1)(c) of the said Rules but that rule, in our considered opinion, may not be the appropriate provision under which the petitioner’s case is to be considered. 29. Mr. Nayak, learned Addl. Government Advocate has strenuously contended that Clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 4 clearly provide that such benefits can only be availed on completion of 9 years of continuous service from the approved date of joining and coming over to the full GIA scale. Even if, we accept the proposition as provided by Explanation, the requisite period for the petitioner to get into the post of the Lecturer (Group-A Scale) is 9 years [of continuous service from the approved date of joining]. But 20 we cannot accept the proposition in as much as the said explanation is in contrast to the basic provisions of Rules 4 (1) (b) and (c) of the said Rules. To obviate the effect of the explanation, we read down and hold that an explanation can provide many thing but not in contrast to the basic rules. 30. In view of the discussion as made above, there cannot be any ambivalence that the petitioner’s approved date of appointment is 23.05.1995 and the same was approved by a posterior order. We are constrained to observe that the Clarification dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure- A to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties) and the Clarification dated 20.01.2016 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.2) cannot be sustained so far as the interpretation as provided in Para 3 is concerned. It has been provided by Para 3 that a non- SSB lecturer can avail the benefit of Lecturer (Group-A Scale) and Reader (State Scale) only after completion of 17 years and 27 years of continuous service respectively from the approved date of joining. We read down the said provision for being contrary to the provision of Rule-4(1) (b) of the Orissa Non-Government Aided College Lecturers Placement Rules, 2014. That apart, a clarification, cannot take away any benefit granted by the substantive rule. The placement of a Non-SSB Lecturer to the grade of Lecturer (Group-A Scale) will be guided by the provision of Rule-4 (1)(b) of the said Rules [of 2014]. 21 31. Hence, we declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the Lecturer (Group-A Scale) from the date when he had completed 8 years of service in the post of Lecturer from the date of getting the GIA scale. But so far the policy of the Government to pay notionally for a certain period is not intervened by us. That part of the notification dated 20.01.2016 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties), therefore, stands good. The pay of the petitioner in the post of Lecturer (Group-A Scale) shall be fixed notionally from the date of his eligibility till 01.01.2014, but it is made absolutely clear that the petitioner’s pay shall be fixed in the said scale in the manner as provided under Rule 9 of the said Rules, as reproduced above, in the post of Lecturer (Group-A Scale) on the date of eligibility i.e. 23.05.2003.” 18. In our considered opinion all these writ petitions are covered by our decision in Chittaranjan Das Vs. State of Odisha & Others. Accordingly, we direct the Opposite Parties to grant the petitioners the benefit of the Lecturer (Group-A scale) from the date when they have completed 9 years of service in the post of Lecturer, but the pay shall be fixed notionally for the period from the day of their appointment in the Lecturer (Group-A Scale) under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme till 31.12.2013. 22 19. The petitioners shall be entitled to get the actual financial benefits and other service benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2014. The arrear pay and allowances, in terms of the above order, shall be paid after deduction what the petitioners have already received on account of pay and allowances for holding the post of Lecturer or the post of the Lecturer (Group-A) scale within a period of 3 (three) months from the date when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order to the Opposite Parties. 20. In terms of the above, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. …………………………. (S. Talapatra, J) [ . Savitri Ratho, J. I agree. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2023 16:39:55 …………………………. (Savitri Ratho, J) High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. The 6th July, 2023/ R.R. Nayak, Jr. Steno.