The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.14974 of 2023 1) Sarata Kumar Bhanja 2) Rajib Lochan Acharya 3) Ashok Kumar Patnaik 4) Mamata Sahoo 5) Ranjita Behera ..... Petitioners Dr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) The Director, Higher Education Dept. 3) Sub-collector, Champua-cum- president, G.B., Barbil College 4) The Principal-cum-secretary, G.B. Of Barbil College ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.S. Pradhan, AGA
Legal Reasoning
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 08.05.2024 Order No.09 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Dr. B.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the order communicated vide letter No. 3814 dtd.01.06.2022 under Annexure-7 and with a further prayer to direct the Opp. Parties to release the arrear increment from January 2010 to December 2017. 4. It is contended that Petitioners are all continuing as teaching staff in Barbil College, Barbil. Even though their services were approved Page 1 of 5. under GIA Order, 2009 and they are receiving block grant w.e.f.01.02.2009, but in view of the stipulation contained under Para 5 of GIA Order, 2009, they are eligible to get the benefit of increment as claimed. Para 5 of the GIA Order, 2009 reads as follows:- “5. Rate and disbursement of Block Grant 4 (1) The Block Grant payable to the employees of the Aided Educational Institutions under Para. 4 shall be a fixed sum of Grant-in-Aid, which shall be determined by taking into account the initial of the basic pay at the prerevised time scale of pay plus 7 increments plus Dearness Allowance at the rate of 41 percent as on the 1st day of January, 2004 of the teaching & non-teaching employees of the Aided Educational Institution, who have not received Grant-in-Aid or Block Grant, but the determination of the quantum of such Block Grant shall be within the limits of economic capacity of Government as mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 7-C of the Act and shall have no linkage with the salary and allowances payable to any such employee by the Governing Body, from time to time. (2) The Block Grant shall be placed, through the Director, at the disposal of the Secretary of Governing Body of the concerned educational institution proportionately either on quarterly or monthly basis. the Governing Body of each Aided (3) The Secretary of Educational Institution at whose disposal the Block Grant is so placed shall utilize the grant in the manner and for the purpose, as may be specified by the Director and furnish the utilization certificate thereof at such interval as may be specified by the Director while releasing such grant. (4) The Block Grant shall not be utilized in respect of posts other than those for which it is sanctioned. (5) Payment of Block Grant under this Order shall be made w.e.f. February, 2009, which is payable on or after the 1st day of March, 2009. (6) No claim on account of Block Grant under this Order shall be made or entertained for any period prior to the month of February, 2009.” Page 2 of 5. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that in view of the provision contained under Para-5, Petitioners though are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of increment w.e.f. January, 2010, but the same when was not sanctioned by the Governing Body, they approached the authority concerned with a pryaer to extend the said benefit. But Opp. Party No. 3 rejected the same vide the impugned communication dtd.01.06.2022 under Annexure-7. It is accordingly contended that since in view of the provisions contained under Para 5 of the GIA Order, 2009, Petitioners are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of increment from the Management, rejection of the same by Opp. Party No. 3 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that after approval of the services of the Petitioners entitling them to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid under GIA Order, 2009, Petitioners were allowed with 5 (five) annual increments in the year 2014 and another 5 (five) increments in the year 2016. It is also contended that prior to being allowed with the benefit of Grant-in-aid in the year 2009, Governing Body was regularly paying the salary with annual increment. Stand taken by Opp. Party No. 4 in Para 4, 6 & 7 are reproduced hereunder:- “4 That the G.B staffs came under the fold of block grant in the year 2009. Previously the G.B staffs were paid G.B salary with annual increment regularly. But a controversy was arise after introduction of Block Grant system regarding double Payment, keeping in view for future audit, the then Principal had stopped paying management salary up to 2013 and continued later on up to December 2017. xxx xxx xxx Page 3 of 5. 6. That the pay scale of Block Grant employees has been fixed with 05 annual increments in the year 2014 by the Department of Higher Education Odisha, Bhubaneswar and in the mean while again their pay fixation was made in the year 2016 with 05 annual increments. Since an employee cannot be given double increment for the same year, as such the then principal did not pay any heed to their problem. 7. That pursuant to the letter No.21530/HE dated 15.10.2019 of the commissioner -cum- Secretary to the Government and letter No.15319 dated 17.12.2019 of the Director of Higher Secondary Education Odisha, Bhubaneswar which states that "no additional payment will be made by the management to the employees receiving full GIA/Block Grant and also directed strictly to deduct the excess amount if paid to the employees. Any deviation/disobedience of order of the government will not only invite disciplinary action against the Principal but also the excess amount paid will be recovered from the Principal concerned”. As such petitioners have received any annual increments from the management does not arises at all.” 5.1. It is contended that since Petitioners are getting Grant-in-aid with due sanction of increment from time to time, they are not eligible and entitled to get any benefit from the Govt.-Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2. It is also contended that since Petitioners are getting Grant-in-aid in the shape of salary and they are getting increment as due and admissible after such approval of their services, they are not eligible and entitled to get any further increment as claimed and the same has been rightly rejected by Opp. Party No. 3 vide impugned order enclosed to communication dtd.01.06.2022 under Annexure-7. 6. This Court considering the stand taken in the counter affidavit when directed the State Counsel to obtain further instruction in the matter, the Department vide letter dtd.15.04.2024 indicated that since Petitioners were brought into the fold of Block Grant w.e.f.01.02.2009, Petitioners being management employees, by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 7-C of the Odisha Page 4 of 5. Education Act claiming increment from the Management along with the Block Grant provided by the State-Govt. under GIA Order, 2009. After receipt of such Block Grant in shape of salary, when the Management stopped the payment of increment, for which Petitioners have filed number of cases before this Court. Thereafter, the Governing Body passed a resolution on 02.07.2014 to release the arrear salary by the Management Governing Body with a condition that they withdrew all the cases from this Court. But Petitioners did not receive the arrear salary on the plea that the Management had not released increment for the period from 2010 to 2017. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that Petitioners after being brought over to the fold of Grant- in-aid w.e.f.01.02.2009, they have no further claim to get the benefit of increment from the Management as claimed in the present writ petition. It is also found that after being brought over to the fold of Grant-in-aid, increments as due and admissible have been sanctioned in the year 2014 and 2016. Therefore, as per the considered view of this Court, the claim as made by the Petitioners in the present writ petition is completely mis-conceived and it has been rightly rejected by Opp. Party No. 3, which requires no interference. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Signature Not Verified Sneha Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-May-2024 16:34:54 (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Page 5 of 5.