The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 9482 of 2020 Gobinda Chandra Sahoo ..... State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Petitioner Mr. S. Behera, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 20.01.2025 Order No. 09 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging order dtd.14.01.2020 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure- 8. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of Trained Graduate scale of pay on his attaining the age of 48 years was rejected. It is contended that Petitioner on his attaining the age of 48 years when was not sanctioned with the Trained Graduate scale of pay, in the light of the decision in the case of Radharani Samal Vs. State of Odisha reported in 2017(I) ILR-CUT-546, he approached the authority with a prayer to extend the said benefit. 4. It is contended that on consideration of his prayer, Opp. Party No. 2 vide his letter dtd.18.04.2012 recommended his case to the concerned Inspector of School-Opp. Party No. 3. It is contended that on the face of such request when no action was taken, Petitioner Page 1 of 6. moved Opp. Party No. 3 by making a representation on 15.05.2012 under Annexure-3. 4.1. It is contended that when claim of the Petitioner was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 12239 of 2012. This Court vide order dtd.14.05.2014 disposed of the writ petition directing Opp. Party No. 3 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim. Opp. Party No. 3 while rejecting the claim passed the following order on 07.06.2014 under Annexure-4:- “Sri Gobinda Chandra Sahoo, Asst. Tr., Anchalika High School, Deuli has filed a writ in W.P.(C) No.12239 of 2012 praying for the opposite parties regarding disbursement of T.G. scale of pay in favour of the petitioner who has completed 48 years of age as on 01.10.2007 and also present salary as per Directorate letter No. 16099 dated 18.04.2012. The Hon'ble High Court has disposed the case on 14.05.2014 with direction to the Insopector of Schools, Khordha Circle, Khordha that
Decision
"Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the materials available on record the writ petition is disposed of directing the Inspector of Schools, Khordha, O.P. No.3 to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner under Annexure-3 within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order." Pursuant to order No.6 dated 14.05.2014 of Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner submitted that proposal for allowing higher scale i.e. trained scale of pay on attending the age of 48 years. of Subsequently, it is ascertained from G.O. No.3116 dated 22.01.96 of S & M.E. Deptt. and Rule-30 of Orissa Sub-ordinate Education(Method and conditions of service) Rule 1993 that all untrained teachers in LSES cadre serving in Govt. High Schools who have completed 48 years of age may be allowed trained scale of pay w.e.f.18.12.1993: subject that such untrained teachers shall not be included in the gradation list prepared for promotion to the next higher rank. to condition recruitment Page 2 of 6. Similarly, Rule-30 of Orissa Sub-ordinate Education (Method of recruitment and conditions of service) Rule 1993 clearly indicated that "An untrained teacher belonging to the Jr. grade of service shalkl on attaining the age of 48 years be exempted from undergoing training and shall be entitled to financial benefits of a trained teachers." The Joint Secretary to Got S & M.E. Deptt. letter No.62159/SME dated 16.04.2010 and Dy. Director, Directorate of 'Secondary Education, Odisha letter No. 16099 dated 18.04.2012 had allowed the higher scale as per provision contained in G.O. No.3116 dated 22.01.1996. After verification of the service book, it is found that the petitioner was appointed on 16.08.1983 in the post of TGT but the Govt. G.O. dated 22.01.96 clearly indicates those acting in LSES post are eligible of higher scale after age of 48. Therefore, the case is not identically similar as per G.O No.3116 dated 22.01.1996. The prayer of the petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law and merits no consideration.” 4.2. It is contended that challenging order dtd.07.06.2014 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-4, Petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 14251 of 2014. This Court vide order dtd.15.11.2019 under Annexure-5, quashed order dtd.07.06.2014 and remitted the matter to Opp. Party No. 3 to pass appropriate order in accordance with Rule 30 of the Orissa Sub- ordinate Education (Method of recruitment and conditions of service) Rule, 1993 (in short Rules). It is contended that without proper appreciation of the said order, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.14.01.2020 under Annexure-8. 4.3. It is contended that since claim of the Petitioner has been rejected without following the order passed by this Court on 15.11.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 14251 of 2014, the same is not Page 3 of 6. sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of trained scale of pay w.e.f.01.10.2007 till he attained the age of superannuation. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that Petitioner was appointed as against a Trained Graduate post, even though at the relevant point of time he was untrained. Accordingly, while approving his services, in the order of approval, it was clearly indicated that Petitioner will have to acquire the B.Ed. qualification within two years from the date of approval, failing which he will be replaced by trained Selection Board candidate. 5.1. It is contended that such conditional order of approval was never assailed by the Petitioner and he accepted the same without raising any objection. However, without fulfilling the requirement of the order of approval in acquiring the B.Ed. qualification, Petitioner raised his claim to get the benefit of trained graduate scale of pay on attaining the age of 48 years, taking recourse to the provision contained under Rule 30 of the 1993 Rules. 5.2. Even though such claim was recommended by Opp. Party No. 2 and this Court also passed some orders in the earlier two writ petitions, but since Petitioner admittedly never acquired the training qualification in terms of the order of approval issued in the year 1993 so reflected in his service book under Annexure-A/3, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get benefit of Trained Graduate scale of pay. 5.3. It is contended that in terms of the order of approval though Petitioner never acquired the training qualification, but he was allowed to continue as an untrained hand all through till he attained Page 4 of 6. the age of superannuation. It is further contended that since in terms of the conditional order of approval, which the Petitioner accepted without raising any objection, he never acquired the training qualification till he attained the age of superannuation, his claim to get the benefit of trained graduate scale of pay on attaining the age of 48 years, has been rightly rejected on the ground indicated in Annexure-4. 6. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner made further submission taking into account the stand taken in the rejoinder affidavit. It is contended that since Petitioner on the face of such conditional order of approval was allowed to continue as an untrained hand, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 30 of the 1993 Rules, Petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of trained graduate scale of pay on attaining the age of 48 years, which fell due on 01.10.2007. It is contended that since Petitioner was allowed to continue as an untrained hand all through, in view of the said provision he was eligible to get the benefit of Trained Graduate scale of pay, which has been wrongly rejected. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Rule 30 of the aforesaid 1993 Rules reads as follows:- “30. Exemption from training – An untrained teacher belonging to the Junior grade of the service shall on attaining the age of 48 years be exempted from undergoing training and shall be entitled to get financial benefits of a trained teacher. Provided that the name of such untrained teacher shall not be placed in the gradation list of persons holding the degree of Bachelor of Education.” Page 5 of 6. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as against a Trained Graduate post even though he was an untrained hand. Accordingly, while approving his services as against such a Trained Graduate post, a condition was imposed that Petitioner has to acquire the training qualification within a period of two (2) years, failing which he will be replaced by trained Selection Board candidate so reflected under Annexure-A/3. It is not the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner did not accept such conditional order of approval and such conditional order of approval was never accepted by the Petitioner, till he raised his claim to get the benefit of trained graduate scale of pay on his attaining the age of 48 years, in terms of the Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules. 7.1. Since admittedly Petitioner never acquired the training qualification on the face of such conditional order of approval, it is the view of this Court that on the face of such order, Petitioner should not have been allowed to continue in his services. However, since Petitioner continued as an untrained hand till he attained the age of superannuation, this Court is of the view that Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of Trained Graduate scale of pay in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 30 of the aforesaid Rules. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dtd.14.01.2020 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-8 and accordingly is not inclined to interfere with the same. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Jan-2025 18:38:01 (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Page 6 of 6.