The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 845 of 2025 Ajit Kumar Mishra … Appellant -Versus - State of Odisha & Others … Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate For Respondents :- Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing & Judgment : 24.07.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. The case has checkered history. The appellant is subjected to several rounds of litigations before this Court as well as the Tribunal ventilating his grievance for regularization of service, payment of scale of pay and entitlement to receive higher pay scale admissible to the trained teachers. Page 1 of 13 3. The prelude to the litigation as discerns from the record can be traced from the year, 1992 when the appellant was permitted to discharge the duties of a teacher continuously and uninterruptedly. After achieving requisites number of years, the prayer was made for regularization of the said service before the Authority, which was rejected in the year, 2004. Since the regularization was rejected, the appellant was not put in the role of a teacher, and it can be reasonably inferred that he was not allowed to join and discharge his duties. The
Legal Reasoning
order rejecting the regularization of service was challenged before the State Education Tribunal, which was disposed of in a short span of time with the following directions:- “In the present case the applicant joined his service on 15.07.1992 i.e. prior to the advent of the above Rules. Therefore, he cannot be said that his appointment was illegal for select of B.Ed. Training. Annexure-5 is therefore misconceived and is therefore liable to be quashed. The applicant is also entitled to approval of his appointment and to get grant-in-aid at untrained scale.
Decision
O R D E R The case is allowed on contest but without costs. Annexure-5 is quashed. The O.P. Nos. 1, 2 & 3 shall approve the appointment of the applicant and shall give him grant-in-aid at un-trained scale, within a period of three months of communication of a copy of this judgment.” Page 2 of 13 4. Despite a specific direction passed by the learned Tribunal to approve the appointment of the appellant as an untrained teacher within the stipulated time, a complete apathy was shown by the State and the fact remains that the order of the Tribunal was not implemented. It is brought to the notice of the Bench that there was no express provision in the Tribunal Act applicable to the State Education Tribunal to implement its own order. The only course available to the aggrieved person was to move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which, in fact, was filed by the appellant in 2007 being W.P.(C) No.863 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of on 25.09.2007 directing the concerned Authorities to implement the said award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order subject to however that there is no interdict from the proper forum. 5. Despite the communication of the said order, the appellant’s service was not regularized nor any appointment order was made in his favour, which constrained the appellant to file a contempt application being CONTC No.371 of 2008 before this Court. The contempt petition was dropped on an assurance given by the learned counsel appearing for the Contemnor - Opposite Party that the order Page 3 of 13 of the Tribunal would be implemented. Yet there was no respect or sanctity shown to the order of the Court. A miscellaneous application being Miscellaneous Case No.58 of 2010 was registered in the said disposed of contempt matter, and by an order dated 03.05.2010, the Secretary, School and Mass Education Department and the Inspector of Schools, Mayurbhanj were directed to appear in person before this Court on 05.07.2010. After receiving the said order, office order No.8118 dated 20.06.2010 was issued by the Inspector of Schools, Mayurbhanj implementing the order of the State Education Tribunal with stipulations that the appellant shall be treated as an untrained teacher and be entitled to Block-grant in untrained scale of pay from the date he joins the duty. Undeniably, after the said order, the appellant was permitted to join on 29.06.2010 as a teacher in untrained scale of pay. 6. Subsequently, the appellant approached the School Authority asserting that he being a B.Ed. degree holder, should be granted trained scale of pay. The School Authority vide Letter No.17 dated 29.04.2014 wrote to the District Education Officer, Mayurbhanj recommending for trained scale of pay to be given to the appellant, as he has passed B.Ed. degree course from IGNOU and a certificate in this regard is issued on 10.03.2014 which was annexed thereto. Page 4 of 13 Despite such communication, the appellant was not paid the trained scale of pay. The approach was made to this Court before a Single Bench for writ of mandamus directing the respondents-Authorities to release the arrear Block-grant and trained scale of pay to the appellant from 01.01.2004 to 26.06.2010 and enhanced rate of Block-grant from 01.04.2013 to 09.03.2014, and further Block-grant in the trained scale of pay from 10.03.2014. 7. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents-Authorities, the stand was taken that the arrear salary is not tenable, as the appointment of the appellant was not in conformity with the procedures laid down by the Government on the basis of an approved staffing pattern or yardstick. The Single Bench, after noticing the same, dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that the order of the Tribunal postulates the pay scale on an untrained teacher, and the said order having accepted and not assailed by the appellant, he cannot claim the pay scale as trained teacher. 8. The point emerged before us is whether the findings of the learned Single Bench that the appellant should assail the order of the State Education Tribunal being the substratum of the entire adjudication, can be sustained. Page 5 of 13 9. Indubitably, the Tribunal passed an order in favour of the appellant not only directing regularization of the service but also to grant approval to the appointment, as at the relevant point of time, the appellant did not have a training qualification and, therefore, to be paid as an untrained candidate. The Authorities consumed several years to implement the said order, as the litigations travelled before different forums which are adumbrated hereinbefore. Ultimately, the appellant is appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher at a scale of pay admissible to an untrained teacher and was paid the salary at such scale of pay. There has been a considerable lapses and latches on the part of the Authorities in implementing the order of the Tribunal. The finding of the learned Judge of the Single Bench cannot be sustained for the reason that if the Petitioner was held guilty of not challenging the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought not to have overlooked the fact that the State did not implement the order for a considerable period of years and the right which was crystalized in terms of the order of the Tribunal was kept in suspended animation. It is only in the year 2010, when the contempt application was filed and a direction was passed to implement the order, the Petitioner’s appointment letter was issued. The operative portion of the order passed by the State Education Tribunal is exposit on the entitlement Page 6 of 13 of the appellant for regularization of his service with further direction to appoint the appellant to the post of an Assistant Teacher to a scale of pay attributed to an untrained teacher. 10. Since the appellant did not have the requisite educational qualification to come within the ambit of a trained teacher, we do not find any ambiguity in the order of the Tribunal in directing the payment of salary at the pay scale of an untrained teacher. The claim of a pay scale admissible to the post of a trained teacher was pursued only in the year, 2014 after acquiring B.Ed. degree from the IGNOU and the certificate dated 10.03.2014 was submitted to the Competent Authority. The appellant claimed such scale of pay from the date of said certificate and not from an anterior date. The learned Single Bench did not consider the aforesaid aspect and was misdirected by the statement made in paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents side that the appointment of the teaching and non- teaching staff was not in conformity with the procedures laid down by the Government on the basis of approved staffing pattern or the yardstick mentioned in the different provisions of law. The Single Bench did not consider the fact that the Education Tribunal passed order in the year, 2006 directing for regularization of the service of the appellant with effect from 2004. Therefore, the question of Page 7 of 13 appointment dehors the provision cannot be reopened for the reason that the State did not challenge the order of the Education Tribunal or, in the event challenge is made, could not yield any fruitful result. The order attained its finality and therefore is not susceptible to be interfered with. There is no occasion on the part of the State Authorities in not implementing the same in its true spirit and purport. The State appears to be valiant in not implementing the said order which led deprivation of the appellant to get the benefit of the approval of appointment from the date indicated in the order passed by the State Education Tribunal. 11. So far as the claim of the arrear salary from the date mentioned in the order of the State Education Tribunal till the actual appointment is made by issuing the order of appointment in the year 2010 is concerned, we cannot ignore the fact that the appellant did not render service nor discharged his duties during the aforesaid period. If a person has not worked for such period, whether he is entitled to any monetary benefit in the form of salary, as his service was directed to be reckoned from particular anterior date, we do not intend to delve deep into the fact that whether the appellant was prevented from joining the said post or was forced not to join, as we find that the appellant did not discharge his duties for the reasons Page 8 of 13 which can reasonably be attributed to the conduct of the respondents- Authorities. It would be too onerous and burdensome to direct for payment of the salary for the period, when the teacher (appellant) did not discharge his duty, but equally, we cannot ignore that despite the order having passed which subsequently attained its finality, there was an unjust enrichment upon the legal rights which gets fructified in favour of the appellant. The right to appointment should be construed from the date of the order of the State Education Tribunal. But, since the appellant did not discharge his duties, the benefit shall be treated as notional for the purpose of computation of the length of service. 12. The sequel of the facts, as narrated above, leaves no ambiguity in our mind that the appellant was illegally and wrongfully prevented from discharging his duties, and the right which got crystalized and /or fructified on the basis of the order of the Tribunal, was kept in abeyance for a considerable period of time, for which we feel that the appellant is entitled to a compensation. 13. So far as the claim of the pay scale of trained teacher category is concerned, reliance is placed upon Rule 16 of The Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974, Page 9 of 13 which postulates that all appointments except those made under Rule 8 shall be on probation for a period of two years, and in case of non- trained teacher, it may be extended for a period not exceeding one year. 14. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 16, which, in our opinion, is clinching the issue, is relatable to the scale of pay admissible to the teacher who acts as a trained category candidate and therefore it is pertinent and relevant to quote such provision, which reads thus :- “16 (2) No teacher who has not undergone the training prescribed for the post shall hold the post substantively; Provided that an untrained teacher having not less than ten years of service shall undergo condensed in-service training provided by the Government and after successful completion of such training shall be eligible for confirmation and shall be entitled to draw salary of a trained teacher : Provided further that a teacher attaining the age of 48 years shall be exempted from undergoing the training and shall be entitled to financial benefits of a trained teacher.” A manifest reading of the above quoted provisions conveys laudable message that an untrained teacher having not less than 10 years of service is to undergo condensed in-service training provided Page 10 of 13 by the government and, then, after completion of the said training successfully, will be eligible for confirmation as trained teacher. 15. The appellant sought to interpret the 1st proviso to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 16 that the moment he has acquired B.Ed. degree, he is entitled to be a trained teacher. The meaningful reading of the first proviso does not indicate the interpretation sought to be given by the counsel for the appellant. The first proviso is applicable only where the training is provided by the government to an in-service teacher and only after the successful completion of the said training, the untrained teacher shall be eligible to the pay scale of a trained teacher. 16. Admittedly, the petitioner has not pursued B.Ed. degree course, provided by the government, as an in-service candidate, but independently applied and got admission and obtained the B.Ed. degree and therefore it can be reasonably inferred that the conditions enshrined in the first proviso does not meet the requirements relating to the claim of pay scale as a trained candidate. However, we cannot overlook the second proviso appended thereto, wherein, any non- trained teacher having attained the age of 48 years, shall be exempted from undergoing the training, but shall be entitled to the financial benefit of a trained teacher. Page 11 of 13 17. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has attained the age of 48 years much before and therefore comes within the ambit of the second proviso. Even if we consider the stand of the State that the petitioner’s eligibility is not in conformity with the relevant provisions, yet by virtue of the second proviso, the moment the petitioner crossed 48 years of age, the financial benefit as a trained teacher should be admissible to him. 18. From the discussions as made hereinabove, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the findings returned in the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment is thus set aside. The writ petition is allowed with the following observations – (i) The service of the Petitioner shall be notionally reckoned in terms of the order of the State Education Tribunal, but he shall not be entitled to any actual financial / monetary benefit. (ii) Since the petitioner was deprived of not only getting his appointment but also to discharge his duties despite having successfully undergoing all the adjudicatory process, we feel that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) as compensation shall be adequate and, therefore, direct the State to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to the Page 12 of 13 petitioner towards compensation within three weeks from the date of this order. (iii) The Petitioner is also entitled to such Pay Scale, as admissible to the trained teachers, from the month following the month in which he completes 48 years of age, as recorded in his Service Book prepared by the State Authorities, and such amount shall be paid to him within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Chief Justice ( Harish Tandon ) Judge ( M.R. Pathak ) S.K. Parida / Narayan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SAMIR KUMAR PARIDA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentic Copy Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Aug-2025 15:36:37 Page 13 of 13