Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 489 (ORI)

Pratap Kumar Dutta v. State of Orissa

2013-12-11

B.R.SARANGI

body2013
JUDGMENT Dr. B.R.SARANGI, J. : The petitioners, who are working as Lecturers in Utkalmani Gopabandhu Smruti Mahavidylaya, Sakhigopal, in the district of Puri have filed this application challenging the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Government of Orissa refusing to release their arrear salary on the ground of financial crunch. 2.Mr. K.K.Swain, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been appointed as Lecturers in various subjects of the Utkalmani Gopabandhu Smruti Mahavidyalaya, Sakhigopal and their services have been duly validated pursuant to the Validation Act, 1998 and their appointments were also approved by the competent authority. Since they are entitled to grant-in-aid components from the Government, they claimed arrear salary for the period from 17.10.1998 till February 2002 and sought for release of the same forthwith. Such claim of the petitioners has been rejected vide Annexure-10 dated 27.12.2003 stating that due to unprecedented financial crunch faced by the State Government, adequate provision could not be made in the budget for payment of arrear grant-in-aid to the validated Lecturers. It is further stated that the current year's budget provision is not even adequate to meet the salary cost for 12 months of existing approved employees of different aided Non-Government Colleges of the State. It is further stated that as and when adequate funds will be made available for payment of arrear grant-in-aid to the validated Lecturers, the claim of the petitioners will be taken up without any discrimination, thereby rejected the claim of the present petitioner for release of arrear grant-in-aid. Such letter has been issued on 27.12.2003 and in the meantime ten years have elapsed and the petitioners have not been paid their legitimate claims. 3.When the matter was listed on 02.12.2013, Mr. Swain learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Sanjib Kumar Pattnaik & others v. State of Orissa and others, (2002) 1 OLR 58 and Prafulla Kumar Sahoo v. State of Orissa and others, 2003 (I) OLR 91 wherein this Court held that Lecturers whose appointments are validated under the Statute are entitled to receive grant-in-aid towards their salary and arrear salary with effect from the date of commencement of the Validation Act, 1998. Learned State Counsel prayed time to go through the aforesaid judgments and submitted with regard to its applicability in the present case. Learned State Counsel prayed time to go through the aforesaid judgments and submitted with regard to its applicability in the present case. But the opposite parties have not filed counter affidavit. Today when the matter is taken up, no instruction is forthcoming. Therefore, without awaiting for further instruction, the grievance of the petitioners is to be decided in accordance with the provision of law. 4.As it reveals that the petitioners have been appointed in various subjects of Utkalmani Gopabandhu Smruti Mahavidyalaya, Sakhigopal. Their services have been validated pursuant to the Validation Act, 1998. It is admitted case of the petitioners that their services have been approved and validated by the competent authority and looking at the impugned order Annexure-10 dated 27.12.2003, it is made clear that the Government has never disputed the petitioner's appointment, their approval as well as their entitlement. Rather it is stated that due to financial crunch faced by the State Government, the grant-in-aid benefit have not been extended to the validated Lecturers for the present. This Court while considering the judgment in the case Sanjib Kumar Pattnaik and others v. State of Orissa and others, 2001 (I) OLR 58 have stated in paragraph 7 that : "Before parting with the case, this Court wants to put on record that according to the established procedure with the State Government before a law is enacted, it passes through several preliminaries and that includes concurrence of the Government in Finance Department when there is financial implication involved in a proposed law. Therefore, there is no reason for the Government not to make budgetary provision in the subsequent years when the Act, 1998 came into force in 1998 itself. Therefore, the plea advanced by the Government regarding paucity of funds and no provision of funds made in the budget appears to be unreasonable". Similar view has also taken by this Court in a batch of case in Jagannath Dhal & Others, 2005 (II) OLR 701 where this Court has taken into consideration the judgment of the apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and another v. Pratap Kumar Nayak and another, 93 (2002) CLT 79 SC where the apex Court has held that the employees whose services stood validated ipso facto are entitled to get grant-in-aid. Their cases are to be considered as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and Section 7-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. Their cases are to be considered as per the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and Section 7-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. A similar view has also been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Patra v. State of Orissa & others, 94 (2002) CLT 518. Therefore, looking into the impugned order in Annexure-10 when the State Government is not disputing the entitlement of the petitioners, it is only to take follow up action for payment of their arrear grant-in-aid dues. In the case of Sri Umesh Chandra Pradhan v. State of Orissa and two others, 2010 (II) OLR 439 , this Court directed for payment of legitimate dues referring to the case of Mrs. Laxmipriya Das v. State of Orissa & others, 92 (2001) CLT 402. 5.Right to education is a fundamental right flowing from right to Life guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution of India, no more remains as res integra in view of the judgments of apex Court in Miss Mohini Jail v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1992 SC 1858 and Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others etc. etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., AIR 1993 SC 2178 . Therefore, State cannot shirk its responsibility of ensuring proper education in School and College on the plea of lack of resources or paucity of funds or financial crunch. (See Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others v. G.V.K. Girls High School, J.T. 2000 (i) SC 170). The apex Court in the cases of State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi & others, AIR 1996 SC 1 , Municipal Council, Ratlam, v. Virdhichand and others, AIR 1980 SC 1622 and State of Himachal Pradesh and another v. Umed Ram Sharma and others, AIR 1986 SC 847 held that paucity of funds is not a ground for non-grant of benefit to the employees. 6.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that so far as the entitlement of the petitioners has not been paid by the Government and in the meantime 10 years have elapsed, there is no reason to withhold the legitimate dues on the basis of pendency of the case before this Court. Therefore, the State Government should take immediate steps in consonance with the ratio decided and directions issued by this Court as well as apex Court in the cases referred to supra. Therefore, the State Government should take immediate steps in consonance with the ratio decided and directions issued by this Court as well as apex Court in the cases referred to supra. 7.For the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by the Government of Orissa Department of Higher Education under Annexure-10 to the extent indicating that due to financial crunch faced by the State Government, adequate provision could not be made in the budget for payment of arrear grant-in-aid to the validated Lecturers is hereby quashed and necessary budgetary provision be made immediately for payment of such dues forthwith within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The petitioners are directed to furnish the copy of this order before the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 within two weeks, so that the said opposite party can act upon the same. 8.The writ petition is allowed in part. No cost. Petition allowed in part.