The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.36901, 36904, 36911, 36912, 36913 & 36914 of 2022 Rabinarayan Sahoo …. Petitioners Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 25.11.2024 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Since all the Writ Petitions involve similar issues, all were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that vide orders issued by Opposite Party No.3 on different dates, services of the Petitioners were approved and they were allowed the benefit of grant-in-aid in shape of block grant notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2004. 4.1. It is contended that the Petitioners on such approval of their services were extended with the benefit of Matric // 2 // C.P.Ed. scale of pay. But Petitioners since were possessing I.A.C.P.Ed qualification, they raised their claim to get the benefit of I.A.C.P.Ed scale of pay. The said claim of the Petitioners though was allowed vide order dtd.14.08.2018 of the Govt., but the actual financial benefits was extended w.e.f.01.01.2018 in place of 01.01.2004, save and except the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.36914 of 2022. 4.2. It is contended that all the Petitioners except the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.36914 of 2022 were eligible to get the benefit of I.A.C.P.Ed scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2004 as by then Petitioners are possessing the qualification of IACPED. 4.3. It is contended that even though I.A.C.P.Ed scale of pay was allowed in their favour vide order dtd.14.08.2018 from the date of acquisition of I.A.C.P.Ed qualification but the actual benefit was extended w.e.f.01.01.2018. 4.4. It is contended that similar issue was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.2358 of 2010 and this Court vide order dtd.23.03.2010 held the Petitioner therein to get the financial benefit from the date of acquisition of I.A.C.P.Ed qualification. The view expressed by this Court in the said order reads as follows:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department. Page 2 of 7 // 3 // The petitioner is working as Physical Education Teacher in Bapujee High School, Gelpur in Bhadrak district. The petitioner had approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 11 17 of 1996, which was disposed of on 20.06.2003 directing the opposite party no.2 the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa to work out the same and pay the differential salary to the petitioner. This Court relied on the ratio decided in Niranjan Nayak v. State of Orissa and others. 2003 (II) O.L.R. 321. On receipt of such order, opposite party no 2 while allowing the claim of the petitioner for the IA. C.P. Ed. scale of pay from 01.06.1994 in his order dated 21.12.2006, directed the opposite party no.3 to fix the pay of the petitioner notionally for the period from 01.06.1994 to 30.11.2005. The actual financial benefits were allowed only from 01.12.2005 to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to direct the Inspector of Schools to submit the bill for sanction of differential arrear salary from 01.06.1994 to 30.11.2005 along with the year-wise calculation entitlement sheet non-drawal and certificate duly signed by the head of the Institution. The petitioner further seeks for the relief that the Director, Secondary Education, Bhubaneswar be directed for sanctioning the said arrear dues for the entire period. Opposite party no.3 has filed the counter affidavit. At paragraph-3, the opposite party pleads that the petitioner was appointed by the Management of privately managed school on 01.10.1990 and his appointment was approved to receive grant-in- aid from 01.06.1994 as per the Grant-in-Ald Order, 1994, introduced by the Government of Orissa, Department of School and Mass Education. At that time, there was no provision for allowing IA. CP Ed. scale of pay to PETs. of any High School under the State of Orissa. Government decided to allow I.A. C.P. Ed. Scale of pay to the P.E.Ts. of High Schools of the State on acquisition of I.A. C.P Ed. Qualification, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Court passed in the case of Niranjan Nayak (supra) Accordingly an receiving application from the petitioner and proposal of the Page 3 of 7 // 4 // concerned Headmaster, this opposite party submitted the proposal to the opposite party no.2 for grant of A., C.P. Ed. scale of pay in favour of the petitioner to comply the order dated 20.06.2003 of this Court in O.J.C. No.11717 of 1996 filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department that in view of the stringent financial situation, the Government has taken a decision not to allow IA CP Ed scale of pay from 01.06.1994 to 30 11.2005. This Court in Niranjan Nayak's case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court has held that every employee of an Aided Educational Institution shall draw the same pay and dearness allowance as is admissible to his counterpart in the Government educational institutions under the relevant rules applicable to him. The said provision thus makes no distinction between an employee of the aided educational institution and his counterpart in the far as Government educational is entitlement of pay and dearness allowance concerned. The Division Bench in the reported case however ruled that P.E.Ts with IA C.P.Ed. scale of pay have been drawing the appropriate scale in the Government attached to the said posts Institutions irrespective of the date of acquisition of such qualification, denial of such benefit to their counterparts in the aided educational institutions is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as envisaged in the aforesaid Rule 9. institutions so In this case, the petitioner has acquired I.A.C.P.Ed. qualification from the inception. So, there is no reason, why he should be denied of the scale from 01.06.1994. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds. The opposite parties are directed to take appropriate steps for assessing and releasing the dues of the petitioner in the I.A.C.P.Ed. scale with effect form 01.06.1994 within a period four months from the date of communication of this order. No costs.”. 4.5. It is also contended that placing reliance on the decision in the case of Tarsem Singh, when Government Page 4 of 7 // 5 // in similar nature of claim allowed the financial benefit while allowing the benefits of grant-in-aid prior to three years from the date of the order, the same was interfered with by this Court vide order dtd.30.08.2023 in W.P.(C) No.24754 of 2023. This Court in Para-7 of the said order has held as follows:- “7. Having heard learned counsels for the Parties and placing reliance on the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20713 of 2016, and on being satisfied that the issue involved in the writ petition is similar to the issue decided, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs that the Petitioner will be entitled to get the benefit of the arrear claim from the date of his entitlement as indicated in his respective orders of approval so issued by the Government in the present writ petition. Such entitlement of the Petitioner as due and admissible be released with due calculation within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order”. 4.6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid two decisions, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that since Petitioners were allowed I.A.C.P.Ed Scale of pay from the date of acquisition of I.A.C.P.Ed qualification vide order dtd.14.08.2018, all the Petitioners are eligible and entitled to get the actual financial benefit from the date of acquisition of the qualification and not from 01.01.2018. 4.7. It is contended that claim of the Petitioners to get actual financial benefits of I.A.C.P.Ed scale of pay w.e.f. the date of acquisition of the qualification, directed to be considered by this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions has been rejected by the Director vide order dtd.01.09.2021 in all the cases. However, in view of the decisions as cited Page 5 of 7 // 6 // (supra), claim of the Petitioner needs re-consideration by Opposite Party No.1 as the benefit of I.A.C.P.Ed scale of pay was extended pursuant to the Government order passed vide Order No.17761 dtd.14.08.2018. 5. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been issued, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. However, to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner for re-consideration of the matter by Opposite Party No.1, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State has no serious objection. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the services of the Petitioners were approved and they were made eligible to get the benefit of grant-in- aid in shape of block grant w.e.f. 01.01.2004. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that all the Petitioners were having the I.A.C.P.Ed qualification on the date of such approval and accordingly they are eligible to get the benefit of I.A.C.P.Ed scale w.e.f. the date of acquisition of such qualification, as per the considered view of this Court needs a re-consideration, in view of the decisions rendered in W.P.(C) No.2358 of 2010 and W.P.(C) No.24754 of 2023. 6.1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.01.09.2021 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 so far Page 6 of 7 // 7 // as it relates to the Petitioners in these batch of Writ Petitions. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of I.A.C.P.Ed scale of pay from the date of acquisition of I.A.C.P.Ed qualification. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioners are permitted to provide a copy of this order along with the order passed in W.P.(C) No.2358 of 2010 and W.P.(C) No.24754 of 2023 before Opposite Party No.1 for compliance. 7. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. 8. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected case records. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Nov-2024 13:47:45 Page 7 of 7