Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 96 (ORI)

Adikanda Satpathy v. State of Orissa

2013-04-04

B.K.MISRA, M.M.DAS

body2013
JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. : The aforesaid writ application has been filed by the petitioner calling in question the order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 2277 (C) of 2003. By the said order, the learned Tribunal disallowed the claim of the petitioner to avail the trained graduate scale of pay from 1982 on the ground that the school in question at the relevant time, was in requirement of a Science trained graduate teacher in CBZ, whereas, the petitioner was an Arts trained graduate teacher. Besides that, the learned Tribunal has also dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not approach the learned Tribunal, when the revised yardstick was implemented or when the school in question was taken over by the State Government, i.e. in the year 1994. 2.The petitioner was appointed as a trained intermediate teacher in Janata High School, Beguniapada in the district of Ganjam on 26.11.1969 by the Managing Committee of the school. The appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Inspector of Schools, Ganjam Circle, Berhampur vide his office order dated 16.12.1975. After approval of his appointment, the petitioner availed his monthly salary under the direct payment scheme in the Trained Intermediate scale as per Rule 9 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974. The petitioner, while continuing as such, acquired B.Ed. qualification in the year 1982. The school in question was taken over by the State Government with effect from 07.06.1994 by virtue of a Government Notification. The revised yardstick dated 08.07.1981 came into force with effect from 01.07.1981, which was actually implemented with effect from 01.06.1983. Due to coming into force of the revised yardstick, the trained Intermediate post held by the petitioner was upgraded to a Trained Graduate post, as, in a three-class High School, as per the staffing pattern of 08.07.1981, there was no trained Intermediate post available after introduction of the revised yardstick. Thereafter, the petitioner acquired trained graduate qualification in the year 1982 and claimed for a trained graduate scale of pay with effect from 1982 or with effect from 01.06.1982, from which date, the yardstick was actually implemented. Thereafter, the petitioner acquired trained graduate qualification in the year 1982 and claimed for a trained graduate scale of pay with effect from 1982 or with effect from 01.06.1982, from which date, the yardstick was actually implemented. The State Government also issued two circulars dated 18.06.1983 and 08.05.1992 clarifying the position that if an untrained graduate teacher has been appointed against a trained graduate post and is continuing, as such, he is entitled to get trained graduate scale of pay immediately after acquisition of trained graduate qualification without approval of the higher authorities. In terms of the aforesaid circulars dated 18.06.1982 and 08.05.1992, the petitioner claimed for trained graduate scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1983, but the Inspector of Schools rejected the claim of the petitioner, which was communicated to him on 13.01.1994. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in OJC No. 7570 of 1994. The said writ application was disposed of on 29.08.2003 in view of the ratio decided in the case of Smt. Rama Panigrahi v. State of Orissa and others, 95 (2003) CLT 724 by the Full Bench of this Court. In view of the said order, the petitioner filed the aforesaid Original Application, which has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 3.Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court, the petitioner having approached this Court in the year 1994, the learned Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal at a belated stage. Mr. Swain heavily relied upon the decision in the case of Sri Madhab Chandra Podh v. State of Orissa and 4 others, 1998 (II) OLR 334, and submitted that as per the ratio of the said decision, if, due to coming into force of the revised yardstick, there was surplus of an Arts trained graduate teacher or a Science trained graduate teacher in a School, the obvious thing would be to allow the teacher to avail trained graduate scale of pay as per the yardstick dated 08.07.1981, as there is no trained intermediate post or trained matric post available in a three-class High School and thereafter, to transfer the teacher to some other school in order to cope with the staffing pattern. 4.A counter affidavit has been filed before this Court, inter alia, stating that there are two Arts trained graduate teachers, namely, Sri Sankanidhi Das and Sri Ganeswar Das in Arts, who are working in the said School and one Sri Ramakrushna Dora, who is working as a Science trained graduate teacher having PCM combination. As per the revised yardstick, a post of Science trained graduate with CBZ combination has fallen vacant in the said School. The petitioner is an Arts trained graduate teacher and, as such, he cannot qualify for the said post as per the yardstick of 1981. 5.In the case of Madhab Chandra Podh (supra), the said petitioner was continuing against a trained graduate post in Sachidananda High School in the district of Bolangir and acquired the trained graduate qualification in December, 1983. He was refused trained graduate scale of pay since the date of his acquiring such qualification. The said teacher was also initially appointed against an I.A.C.T. post and the post he was holding was upgraded subsequently to a trained graduate post. He continued in the said post in the I.A.C.T. scale and having acquired the B.Ed. qualification in December, 1983, he became a trained graduate. This Court found that in such facts after the Notification of the Government dated 07.02.1983, the petitioner was entitled to trained graduate scale of pay. The substance of the counter affidavit filed in the said case was that since in accordance with the staffing pattern introduced from 08.07.1981, every High School is to have, in the minimum, one Headmaster and four trained graduate teachers, of which two must be trained science graduates, one with combination of PCM and other with combination of CBZ, and the petitioner is a trained Arts graduate, he is not entitled to higher scale of pay, as there are already two other trained Arts graduate teachers in the School. Hence, there is no room to accommodate another Arts trained graduate teacher in the school. 6.This Court analyzing the Government communication dated 07.02.1983, came to the conclusion that since the petitioner therein was holding the appointment against the trained graduate post since 1975, he became entitled to the trained graduate scale of pay on his acquiring the required qualification. Such right of the petitioner is not to be defeated only because of the revised yardstick. 6.This Court analyzing the Government communication dated 07.02.1983, came to the conclusion that since the petitioner therein was holding the appointment against the trained graduate post since 1975, he became entitled to the trained graduate scale of pay on his acquiring the required qualification. Such right of the petitioner is not to be defeated only because of the revised yardstick. All that the revised yardstick says is that, in a school, there must be two science trained graduate teachers and two Arts trained graduate teachers besides the Headmaster. It never says that the teacher, who has become entitled to the trained graduate scale of pay, would be deprived of the same. It was further laid down in the said decision that if as a result of a teacher acquiring trained qualification, there was a surfeit of trained Arts graduate teacher or the trained Science graduate teacher in the school, as the case may be, the obvious thing to be done is to transfer the required teachers to some other institutions and in their place, get the teachers as are necessary for the purposes of the school. Thus holding, this Court allowed the writ application filed by the petitioner therein directing that he will be granted trained graduate scale of pay from December, 1983, when he acquired the trained graduate qualification. 7.On perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, this Court, therefore, is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not applied the correct position of law as decided by this Court in the case of Madhab Chandra Podh (supra) to the facts of the present case and has also become oblivious of the fact that the petitioner in 1994 approached this Court and had to wait till decision of the Full Bench where this Court laid down that the school having been taken over by the Government, the petitioner has to approach the learned Tribunal and immediately thereafter the petitioner filed the Original Application, while coming to the conclusion that the Original Application was barred by limitation. 8.We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the order passed by the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 2277 (C) of 2003, which stands accordingly quashed and we direct that the petitioner will be entitled to trained graduate scale of pay from the date, when he acquired such qualification, i.e, from May, 1982. 8.We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the order passed by the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 2277 (C) of 2003, which stands accordingly quashed and we direct that the petitioner will be entitled to trained graduate scale of pay from the date, when he acquired such qualification, i.e, from May, 1982. The opposite parties are, therefore, directed to calculate the arrear amount payable to the petitioner at the trained graduate scale of pay from May, 1982 and after deducting the amount already received by him, pay the balance amount to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment. It is needless to mention that the petitioner, who has already superannuated, will be paid such amount till his date of superannuation and his pensionary benefit would be revised accordingly. The writ application stands allowed. No costs. B. K. MISRA, J. I agree. Application allowed.