The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5295 of 2022 Kalyanibala Jena …. Petitioner Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. A.K. Saa, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr.H.M. Dhal, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 16.01.2024 Order No. 15. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above circumstances, it is therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by quashing the placement of the petitioner as Lecturers (Group-A) shown in Annexure-9 on 30.09.2010 and as Reader (State Scale) shown in Annexure-10 on 30.09.2020 as the same is contrary to the rule framed by the State Government in Annexure-4 as amended in Annexure-8 and the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the opposite party no.1 to place the position of the petitioner as Lecturers (Group-A) on 01.06.1999 and Reader (State Scale) on 01.06.2009 in place of 30.09.2010 and 30.09.2020 as has been mentioned in Annexures-9 and 10 of the writ application and accordingly the same may be modified by placing the petitioner in its proper place, i.e. and to extend such benefits as has been extended to the counterparts of the petitioner functioning in the aided educational institutions // 2 // pursuant to the provisions prescribed in Annexure-4 and Annexure-8 respectively”. 4.
Legal Reasoning
benefit, she approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.11859 of 2017. 4.4. It is also contended that by the time Notification under Annexure-4 was issued, Petitioner was in receipt of her salary in the pay band of Rs.9,300/- to Rs.34,800/- with grade pay of Rs.4,600/- as reflected in Annexure-5. Petitioner also fulfills the other condition over and above her continuance for the required years of service. 4.5. It is contended that in spite of the eligibility and coverage of her claim in terms of the Notification issued on 04.06.2014, the benefit was never extended. However, without extending the benefit in terms of the Notification issued under Annexure-4 vide the impugned Notification dtd. 03.06.2017 under Annexure-9 and 01.06.2021 under Annexure-10, Petitioner was placed under Lecturer (Group-A) w.e.f. 30.09.2010 and under Reader (State Scale) w.e.f. 30.09.2020. 4.6. Learned Senior Counsel contended that since the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of her placement under Lecturer (Group-A) and Reader (State Scale) is coming within the purview of Para-3 and 4 of the Notification dtd.04.06.2014 under Annexure-4, on the face of the order passed by this Court on 29.06.2017 in W.P.(C) No.11859 of 2017, Petitioner could not have been placed from a subsequent date which is prima facie illegal. Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 4.7. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the stand taken by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in Para-15 of the counter affidavit. Placing reliance on the said para, learned Senior Counsel contended that Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 have also admitted the extension of the benefit of full salary cost in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.1991. 4.8. Learned Senior Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court, similar benefit extended by the Director Higher Education vide order dtd.27.02.2018 under Annexure-11. 4.9. It is contended that since Petitioner was extended with the benefit of full salary cost w.e.f. 01.06.1991, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to be placed under Lecturer (Group-A), on completion of 8 years’ of service i.e. w.e.f. 01.06.1999 and under the Reader (State Scale) on further completion of 10 years from service i.e. w.e.f. 01.06.2009. Since while issuing the impugned Notification under Annexures-9 & 10, Petitioner has not been extended with the benefit in terms of Annexure-4 placement of the Petitioner in both the Grade is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 5. Even though, learned Addl. Government Advocate while supporting the placement of the Petitioner so issued under Annexures-9 & 10 made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, but he contended Page 4 of 7 // 5 // that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by her placement so issued in the impugned Notification under Annexure-9 & 10, Petitioner may approach Opposite Party No.1 for consideration of her placement in terms of the Notification issued under Annexure-4. Since the Petitioner prior to approaching this Court has not raised her claim to get the benefit of placement from a retrospective date, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 6. To the submissions made by learned Addl. Government Advocate, learned Senior Counsel contended that since the Petitioner in the meantime has retired from her services w.e.f. 31.07.2023. Opposite Party No.1 be directed to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner within a reasonable time if Petitioner approaches Opposite Party No.1. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.1986 was approved vide order dtd.19.08.1990 of Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-3. Vide the said order, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of grant- in-aid w.e.f. 01.06.1987 and full salary cost w.e.f. 01.06.1991. The said fact is also admitted by the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in Para-15 of the counter affidavit. In view of such position, this Court is of the view that the claim of the Petitioner is required to be considered in terms of the provisions contained under Para-3 and 4 of the Notification issued by the Page 5 of 7 // 6 // Government in the Higher Education Department on 04.06.2014 under Annexure-4. 7.1. In view of such position, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to make an appropriate application for correction and due placement under Lecturer (Group-A) and Reader (State Scale) so indicated in Annexure-9 & 10. It is observed that if any such application is moved by the Petitioner before Opposite Party No.1 by enclosing all the relevant documents and citations in support of her claim, within a period three (3) weeks hence. Opp. Party No.1 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by the Opp. Party No.1 be communicated to the petitioner. It is further observed that while taking such a decision, relevancy and effect of the benefit of full salary cost extended in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.1991 vide order issued under Annexure-3 and the provisions contained under Para-3 and 4 of the Notification dtd.04.06.2014 under Annexure-4, so also similar benefit extended in favour of other persons vide order dtd.27.02.2018 under Annexure-11, shall be taken into consideration. If on such consideration, it is found that Petitioner is otherwise eligible and entitled to get the benefit as claimed, consequential follow up action shall also be taken within the aforesaid time period. Page 6 of 7 // 7 //
Arguments
It is contended that the Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in English in Abhaya Ayurbeda Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Nasadipur, Kendrapara, vide order of appointment issued on 26.05.1986 under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the said order, Petitioner joined as a Lecturer in English in the College in question on 01.06.1986. 4.1. It is contended that services of the Petitioner was approved by Opposite Party No.2 vide his order dtd.19.08.1990 under Annexure-3. Vide the said order while approving the services of the Petitioner, Petitioner was held eligible to get the benefit of grant-in-aid @1/3rd with effect from 01.06.1987, 2/3rd w.e.f.01.06.1989 and full salary cost with effect from 01.06.1991. 4.2. It is contended that in terms of Annexure-3, Petitioner was also extended with the benefit of grant-in- aid and received the full salary cost w.e.f. 01.06.1991. 4.3. It is contended that while the matter stood thus, Government in the Department of Higher Education issued a Notification on 04.06.2014 under Annexure-4. As per the said notification though the Petitioner became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of her placement under Lecturer (Group-A) Scale of Pay, on completion of 8 years of service from the date receiving of full grant in aid and placement under Reader (State Scale) Scale of Pay after completion of 10 years of continuous service in the grade Lecturer (Group-A), but in terms of the said Page 2 of 7 // 3 // notification, Petitioner when was not extended with the
Decision
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Jan-2024 11:57:51 Page 7 of 7