Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 516 (ORI)

Mayadhar Meher v. State of Orissa

2000-11-14

L.MOHAPATRA

body2000
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J.— The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction to quash Annexure-5 in which his claim for payment of salary in Trained Graduate Scale has been rejected, and for a further direction for payment of salary in the Trained Graduate Scale from 1.6.1983. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in Palli¬shree High School as an Assistant Teacher against the post of trained Matric in 1975. At the time of appointment the petitioner was a Graduate in Science. Subsequently he was allowed to draw I.A.C.T. scale of pay from 5.8.1976 on the basis of a proposal submitted by the Managing Committee. The petitioner acquired B.Ed. qualification on 18.8.1979 and by that time the school was an aided one. Due to introduction of ten class syllabus in the High School, a new revised staffing pattern for a High School with Classes VIII to X was introduced and the said revised yard¬stick came into force with effect from 1.6.1983. In the said revised yardstick the post of Trained Intermediate was replaced by Trained Graduate post. In other words, the said revised yard¬stick prescribed four Trained Graduate Teachers excluding the Headmaster for a three-class High School. The petitioner is continuing in the said post of Trained Graduate since 1.6.1983. The Managing Committee of the school resolved in its resolution dated 23.1.1981 to fix the petitioner’s pay in the Trained Gradu¬ate Scale and a proposal was sent to opposite party No.3. Since there was delay in approval of Trained Graduate Scale of Pay in favour of the petitioner, he approached this Court in OJC No. 134 of 1993 and the same was disposed of on 14.1.1993 directing opposite party No.3. to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass necessary orders within four months. Pursuant to the direction of this Court the Inspector of Schools, Balangir Cir¬cle, on 8.6.1993 rejected the claim of the petitioner for Trained Graduate Scale of Pay on the ground that the petitioner is con¬tinuing against a post meant for Science Teacher with C.B.Z combination and the petitioner does not hold such qualification. Relying on a decision of this Court reported in 1998 (I) OLR 334 : Madhab Chandra Podh v. State of Orissa and others. Relying on a decision of this Court reported in 1998 (I) OLR 334 : Madhab Chandra Podh v. State of Orissa and others. Shri Acha¬rya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to Trained Graduate Scale of Pay on the day he acquired B.Ed. qualification and in fact the petition¬er is working against a Trained Graduate post and therefore, there is no reason for denial of such scale of pay to him. He further submits that there are many other schools where Science Trained Graduate posts with P.C.M. combination are available under the circle and one such school is Sukha High School within the jurisdiction of opposite party No.3 and that the petitioner is ready to go to any other school as 5th Trained Graduate Teach¬er if the authorities so require. Shri Acharya submits that since the post of a Trained Graduate with P.C.M. combination is not available in Pallishree High School, it was the duty of the opposite parties to transfer the petitioner to any other school in terms of the judgment of this Court referred to above and they having not done so, refusal for payment of Trained Graduate Scale of Pay is not justified. 3. A counter has been filed by opposite party No.3 stating that as per the 1981 yardstick which came into effect from 1.6.1983 a three-class High School was entitled to one Headmaster and four Trained Graduate Teachers out of which two would be in Arts and two would be in Science. One of the Trained Science Graduate Teacher should have P.C.M. combination and the other C.B.Z. combination. There is no scope of 5th Trained Graduate Teacher in a school having no additional Sec.. Pallishree High School where the petitioner is working has no additional Sec. in any of the classes. Therefore, question of adjustment of the petitioner in the said school does not arise. The claim of the petitioner that he is working against a Trained Graduate post cannot be accepted as the post was in fact Trained Intermediate one and it had not been upgraded. Therefore, question of adjustment of the petitioner in the said school does not arise. The claim of the petitioner that he is working against a Trained Graduate post cannot be accepted as the post was in fact Trained Intermediate one and it had not been upgraded. It is further stated in the counter that Trained Graduate post is a promotional post so far as Trained Intermediate post is concerned and therefore, unless the petitioner had got promotion in accordance with rules, he cannot claim Trained Graduate Scale of Pay from the date of his adjustment against Trained Graduate post in any other school. 4. It appears from the averments made in the writ applica¬tion that the petitioner was allowed I.A.,C.T. scale of pay from 5.8.1976 and he acquitted B.Ed. qualification in August, 1979, In the 1981 revised yardstick the post of I.A.,C.T. was replaced by a Trained Graduate post, as a result of which the number of Trained Graduate Teachers required to be appointed in a three-class High School increased to four, excluding the Headmaster, Therefore, the statement made in the counter that the petitioner cannot be entitled to Trained Graduate Scale of Pay unless it is proved that his promotion from I.A.,C.T. to Trained Graduate post is in accordance with rules, does not appear to be correct. If the Trained I.A. post was replaced by Trained Graduate post, the question of promotion did not arise. A teacher who had the re¬quired qualification to hold the post of Trained Graduate would be placed as Trained Graduate as per the 1981 revised yardstick. 5. Now coming to the claim of the petitioner with regard to payment of Trained Graduate Scale of Pay with effect from 1.6.1983, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court referred to above. This Court in OJC No. 10505 of 1996 (Banshidhara Sahoo v. State of Orissa and others), disposed of on 27.10.1998, has referred to the aforesaid decision and held that in such cases the incumbent’s appointment against Trained Gradu¬ate post shall be approved with effect from 1.6.1983 nationally and that the incumbent shall not be entitled to draw any Trained Graduate Scale of Pay from that date. The order of approval shall be only for the purpose of counting seniority, promotion and other retiral benefits. The order of approval shall be only for the purpose of counting seniority, promotion and other retiral benefits. The possibility of adjusting the incum¬bent in any other school where the post is available should be explored and he should be paid Trained Graduate Scale of Pay from the date of such adjustment. Following the said decision I dispose of this writ application directing the concerned Inspec¬tor of Schools, opposite party No.3 to notionally approve the appointment of the petitioner as Trained Graduate Teacher in the school in question with effect from 1.6.1983. The order being notional one the petitioner shall not be entitled to draw Trained Graduate Scale of Pay from that date. However, such approval shall only be taken into consideration for the purpose of count¬ing seniority, promotion and other retiral benefits. It is further directed that the Inspector of Schools - opposite party No.3 shall explore the possibility of adjusting the petitioner in the same school and if it is not possible, he shall find out avail¬able vacancy in any other school in his circle and adjust the petitioner against the said post in the other school. The peti¬tioner shall be entitled to Trained Graduate Scale of Pay from the date of such adjustment. Since an averment is made in the writ application that one post of Trained Graduate Teacher with P.C.M. combination is available in Sukha High School, opposite party No.3 is directed to adjust the petitioner against the said vacancy, if available, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Petition disposed of.