Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 623 (ORI)

Sadananda Sahu v. State of Odisha

2018-06-28

D.P.CHOUDHURY

body2018
JUDGMENT Dr. D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. - Challenge has been made to the inaction of the opposite parties for not releasing the arrear salary of the petitioners for the period from 01.04.1994 to 02.09.2013. 2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the writ petition is that the petitioners are teaching and non-teaching staff of Jyoti Vihar High School now upgraded as Higher Secondary School (Junior College) under the Sambalpur University (hereinafter called as “the University”). The upgradation of the High School was made in 1988 after which the petitioners have joined the services. They all have joined between 1988 to 1993. In spite of the upgradation, the petitioners were not paid their salary and allowances at par with their counterparts in Government and non-Government aided educational institutions for which they filed OJC No.10410 of 2000 praying inter alia therein for issue of Writ of Mandamus to the opposite parties to declare them as the employees of the University and to grant full salary and other allowances including retiral benefits as enjoyed by their counterparts in Government and non-Government aided Colleges and University with effect from 01.04.1994. 3. Be it stated that the Division Bench of this Court passed order on 03.09.2013 in the above O.J.C. No.10410 of 2000 wherein Their Lordships have absolutely considered the petitioners as staff of University and accordingly asked the opposite parties to enhance the block grant of University so as to meet the full salary cost of the petitioners at par with their counterparts working in the Government aided educational institutions. Since the block grant was enhanced, the petitioners have filed contempt petition vide CONTC No.1585 of 2013 before this Court and in pursuance of the notice issued in the said contempt petition, the State Government increased the block grant during the supplementary budget in 2015-2016 and accordingly payment was made to the petitioners from 03.09.2013 till 30.09.2015. So, having found the compliance of the order passed in earlier writ petition, this Court dropped the contempt proceeding. 4. Be it stated that the petitioners, since had not been paid their arrear salary for the period from 04.04.1994 to 02.09.2013, as per the observations made by this Court in OJC No.10410 of 2000, they have filed the present writ petition. 5. Traversing the writ petition, the opposite party no.1 has filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made in the writ petition. 5. Traversing the writ petition, the opposite party no.1 has filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made in the writ petition. According to the opposite party no.1, the State Government in Higher Education Department accorded recognition to the +2 Arts and Science Stream opened in Jyoti Vihar University Campus as Jyoti Vihar Higher Secondary School from the academic session 1989-1990. The post graduate teachers, who were teaching in the earlier High School were re-designated as Lecturers and the Laboratory Assistants were redesignated as Demonstrators. The Government in Higher Education Department sanctioned Block grant of Rs.4,00,000/- per year from 01.04.1994 to the University towards payment to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the said college. However, the petitioners filed OJC No.10410 of 2000, as stated in the writ petition, to declare them as the employees of the Sambalpur University and to grant full salary and other allowances including retiral benefits as enjoyed by their counterparts in Government, non-Government aided Colleges and Universities. The opposite party no.1, in his counter affidavit, admitted about the observations of this Court passed in the aforesaid writ petition to enhance the block grant of the University to meet the salary cost of the petitioners and as per the observation, they were paid the enhanced salary after the release of the fund under supplementary budget for the year 2015-2016. In view of the compliance of the order of this Court passed in OJC No.10410 of 2000, the contempt proceeding vide CONTC No.1585 of 2013 was dropped. 6. When there is compliance of the order of this Court passed in OJC No.10410 of 2000, the opposite party no.1 finds no further cause of action to file this writ petition. It is also alleged inter alia that the Department of Higher Education is no more looking after the affairs of the +2 Junior Colleges as that has been already transferred to the administrative control of School and Mass Education Department and the said Department is able to answer the charges made in the writ petitions. In toto, the opposite party no.1 claims that there is no cause of action to file the writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. The opposite party no.3 filed a separate counter affidavit but the same was filed on the same line of counter filed by opposite party no.1. In toto, the opposite party no.1 claims that there is no cause of action to file the writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. The opposite party no.3 filed a separate counter affidavit but the same was filed on the same line of counter filed by opposite party no.1. According to opposite party no.3, as per the order passed by this Court in OJC No.10410 of 2000, the block grant has been enhanced under Demand No.38 of the Higher Education Department. Here, this opposite party has taken a specific plea that the block grant has been enhanced for the University but that does not mean that the petitioners are to take benefit out of that because the petitioners are not treated as employees of Sambalpur University. As per the averment made in the counter affidavit of opposite party no.3, on 6.1.1994, the University decided to take over the management of the Jyoti Vihar Secondary school but later-on on 8.3.1995, the said notification was kept in abeyance. Since the earlier order of this Court is not specific for the relief asked for, the prayer of the petitioners sans merit. So, the same should be dismissed. SUBMISSIONS 8. Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, being the teaching and nonteaching staff of the school in question, are entitled to pay and allowances as available to the aided and non-aided colleges to the University employees because of the declaration made by this Court in OJC No.10410 of 2000. He drew attention of this Court to paragraphs-14 to 17 of the said order wherein this Court observed that as the Syndicate of the University took a decision on 16.11.1993 to take over the charge of the management of the petitioners’ school and the same has been acted upon, the benefits should be given to the petitioners accordingly. Therefore, the block grant should be increased by the opposite parties to pay the arrears of the petitioners. 9. Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners further submitted that since the order of this Court passed in OJC No.10410 of 2000 was not complied, the petitioners have filed CONTC No.1585 of 2013 and that matter was disposed of with the observation that there is compliance of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners further submitted that since the order of this Court passed in OJC No.10410 of 2000 was not complied, the petitioners have filed CONTC No.1585 of 2013 and that matter was disposed of with the observation that there is compliance of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition. Since the petitioners having worked but not getting their salary as per their entitlement and that matter has already been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court with appropriate observation, necessary directions may be issued to the opposite parties to pay the arrear dues of the petitioners for the period in question. In support of his submission, Mr.Dora, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs. Daulen Baxla and others –V- Union of India and others (W.P.(C) No.8205 of 2017 disposed of on 10.01.2018) and submitted to award upgraded pay and other financial benefits to the petitioners. Accordingly, he submitted that the claim of the petitioners from 01.04.1994 to 02.09.2013 cannot be said to be perverse or imaginary. So, he prayed to allow the writ petition. 10. Mr. P.C. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate, without disputing the facts, submitted that the order of this Court in OJC No.10410 of 2000 was passed on 03.09.2013 wherein the final order was passed by directing the State Government to take a decision with regard to enhancement of block grant of Sambalpur University to pay the full salary cost of the employees of the Jyoti Vihar Secondary school at par with their counterparts working in the Government and aided educational institutions. Of course, the petitioners, showing noncompliance of the order passed in OJC No.10410 of 2000, filed CONTC No.1585 of 2013 and a Division Bench of this Court in that CONTC, realized that the order of this Court has already been complied for which Their Lordships dropped the contempt proceeding. He also does not dispute the order passed by this Court in OJC No.10410 of 2000 and CONTC No.1585 of 2013. According to him, as per the order of this Court, salary of the employees of the Jyoti Vihar Secondary School has been enhanced and compliance report has been submitted to the Court. Finding compliance of the order of this Court, this Court dropped the contempt proceeding. According to him, as per the order of this Court, salary of the employees of the Jyoti Vihar Secondary School has been enhanced and compliance report has been submitted to the Court. Finding compliance of the order of this Court, this Court dropped the contempt proceeding. Since the proceeding has been dropped, there cannot be any denial to the compliance of the order of this Court. In support of his submissions, Mr.Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others –V- Tarsem Singh; (2008) 8 SCC 648 and submitted that delayed claim should not be entertained because the arrears are restricted to be claimed within three years prior to filing of the present writ petition. So, he submitted to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 submitted that the University has nothing to do anything more than to go by the instruction of the Government. If the Government would increase the budget, the opposite party no.3 would be able to maintain the institution of the petitioners. If the Government would sanction the fund to meet the burden, the opposite party no.3 would certainly carry out the instruction and make payment of the same to the petitioners. As the State Government is silent after filing the counter, the petitioners and opposite party no.3 have nothing to do. On the other hand, the payment has been made as per the order of this Court and as such, no further cause of action arises for filing the present. 12. POINT FOR DETERMINATION: i) The only point emerges in this case as to whether the petitioners, who are teaching and non-teaching employees of Jyoti Vihar Secondary School are entitled to grant-in-aid with effect from 01.04.1994 to 02.09.2013. DISCUSSIONS 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the teaching and non-teaching staff of Jyoti Vihar Secondary School of Sambalpur University. DISCUSSIONS 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the teaching and non-teaching staff of Jyoti Vihar Secondary School of Sambalpur University. It is also admitted fact that the petitioners were not accepted as University employees and not giving the arrear salary from 1994, the petitioners have filed a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No.10410 of 2000 before this Court to declare them as the employees of the Sambalpur University and to grant full salary and other allowances including retiral benefits as enjoyed by their counterparts in Government, non-Government aided Colleges and University w.e.f. 01.04.1994 and same has been disposed of. It is not in dispute that due to non-compliance of the order passed in O.J.C. No.10410 of 2000, a contempt petition bearing CONTC No.1585 of 2013 was filed and the contempt petition was dropped. 14. It is relevant to note the observations of the Division Bench at paragraphs-13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 passed in O.J.C. No.10410 of 2000 which is quoted herein below: “13. One thing is crystal clear that pursuant to the direction of the State Government to take steps to open vocational stream in the camps High School Jyoti Vihar for upgradation to a vocational Higher Secondary School under the New Education Policy, the University opened +2 wing in the existing High School. Necessary concurrence was given by the State of Orissa and the Junior College was affiliated to the CHSE. The Government have also exempted the University from depositing Rs.1.25 lakhs with the CHSE towards affiliation. 14. We also find that the Syndicate took a decision on 16.11.1993 to take over the management of Jyoti Vihar Higher Secondary School from 1.9.1993. The Syndicate further resolved that the staff of the School will be allowed admissible scales of pay with all benefits as admissible to the University employees subject to eligibility and requisite qualification as per norms prescribed by the Government w.e.f. 1.9.1993 and they will be allowed to draw salary in the admissible scales of pay only after receipt of grants from the Government for the purpose. The Syndicate further resolved in its meeting held on 20.11.1999 to treat the employees of the Secondary wing of the School as University employees w.e.f. 30.8.1999. 15. The Syndicate further resolved in its meeting held on 20.11.1999 to treat the employees of the Secondary wing of the School as University employees w.e.f. 30.8.1999. 15. We further find that from the date of establishment of the High School, necessary grant was released in favour of the School towards salary cost of its employees and the same is being enhanced from time to time. Though a stand has been taken by the Government that the University was advised to manage the institution from its own resources without posing any further liability to Government, but then on a cursory perusal of the counter affidavit, we find that the University authorities pursuant to the letter under Annexure-1, opened the Higher Secondary School and created 18 posts. We further find that the State Government being an ideal employer was pleased to provide Rs.4 lakhs per annum for continuance of +2 College, despite stipulation made in Annexure-4 as Block Grant from 1994-95 to 1998-99. 16. There is no denial to the fact that the performance of the teachers of the +2 is exemplary and by their hard work, the students performed well in the examination. There is also no denial of the fact that the teachers are qualified to hold the posts. In view of the specific stand taken by the State in its counter affidavit in paragraph 5 that the Government have accorded necessary permission to establish the +2 wing and whereafter the University has created posts, and that the block grant has been increased from time to time, there is no justification on the part of the Government not to increase the block grant so as to meet the salary cost of the petitioners. 17. In view of the discussions made in the precedent paragraphs, we direct the opp. party no.3-State of Orissa to take a decision with regard to enhancement of block grant of the Sambalpur University so as to meet the full salary cost of the employees of Jyoti Vihar Secondary School at par with their counterparts working in the Govt./aided educational institutions. Such decision shall be taken within a period of two months from today, keeping in view the observation made above.” 15. Such decision shall be taken within a period of two months from today, keeping in view the observation made above.” 15. The aforesaid observation of the Division Bench shows that there is already resolution of the Syndicate of the Sambalpur University to show that the School has been upgraded to Secondary School from 1.9.1993 and staff of the School are allowed admissible scales of pay with all benefits as admissible to the University employees subject to eligibility and requisite qualification as per norms prescribed by the Government with effect from 1.9.1993 and they are allowed to draw salary in the admissible scales of pay only after receipt of grants from the Government for the purpose. Accordingly the University has already taken decision and created 18 posts. Not only this but also the State Government has been pleased to provide Rs.4 lakhs per annum for continuance of +2 College. Since the State Government in its counter affidavit of the said writ application have accorded necessary permission to establish the +2 wing, the Court directed the State Government to take a decision with regard to enhancement of block grant of the Sambalpur University so as to meet the full salary cost of the employees of the School at par with their counterparts working in the Government/aided educational institutions. The observation of the Court is passed affirmatively to show that the petitioners are the employees of the University and their salary is to be computed at par with the employees working in Government/aided educational institutions. The said decision has neither been reviewed nor challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the decision is reached finality. 16. The plea taken by the opposite party No.3 that after the decision taken by the Syndicate and proposal sent to Government for approval in 1994 till the approval comes, the decision of the Syndicate was kept in abeyance. But as it appears from the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench that Government has already accepted the petitioners as the employees of the University and issued block grant to meet the contingency, the conduct of the University and the State Government cannot rewind the clock anti clockwise. But as it appears from the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench that Government has already accepted the petitioners as the employees of the University and issued block grant to meet the contingency, the conduct of the University and the State Government cannot rewind the clock anti clockwise. Not only this but also Annexure-2 series show that on 13.11.2015 the State Government in obedience to the aforesaid order of this Court directed the Vice-Chancellor, Sambalpur University-opposite party No.3 to pay the salary to the employees including the petitioners at par with the employees working in Government/Aided educational institutions and for that asked the University to make the proposal for enhancement of the block grant. It is relevant to quote a para from that letter: “As regards the enhancement of Block Grant for this purpose, it is to be clarified that during this financial year, the Block Grant for Sambalpur University has been enhanced by Rs.3,06,51,000/- i.e. from Rs.37,61,51,000/- to Rs.40,68,01,000/-. Besides, proposal has also been submitted to Finance Department for giving an additional Block Grant of Rs.13,49,89,000/- to your University during this current financial year. As such, the additional financial burden accruing due to payment of this enhanced salary to the employees of your Secondary School/+2 College can be very well accommodated within this Block Grant.” 17. The aforesaid para of the State Government is clear to show that for payment of enhanced salary of the concerned School of the University/+2 College additional block grant was paid in that year 2015-2016 to obey the order of this Court. Not only this but also it appears that the proposal has been also given on 10.11.2015 for payment of salary to the employees of the Jyoti Vihar Junior College from September 2013 to September 2015. On 16.11.2015 the payment also has been made to the petitioners. 18. The plea taken by the opposite parties is that as the order of this Court passed by the Division Bench in O.J.C. No.10410 of 2000 has been already complied, the CONTC No.1585 of 2013 was dropped. Now it is necessary to go through the order passed in CONTC No.1585 of 2013. On perusal of the entire order it shows that this Court in contempt petition has mainly focused on the operative portion of the order passed in the writ petition and finally passed the order at paragraphs-8 and 9 while dropping the contempt proceeding: “8. Now it is necessary to go through the order passed in CONTC No.1585 of 2013. On perusal of the entire order it shows that this Court in contempt petition has mainly focused on the operative portion of the order passed in the writ petition and finally passed the order at paragraphs-8 and 9 while dropping the contempt proceeding: “8. …….. While submitting the above, the affidavit also appended a statement of arrears as per enhanced salary and the acknowledgement of receipt of cheque thereof. From the whole reading of the above, it clearly appears that the order of this Court passed in O.J.C.No.10410 of 2000 has already been complied with by the opposite parties to the contempt petition. 9. Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioners have failed in making out a case for initiation of contempt proceeding against the opposite parties. Consequently, while dismissing the contempt petition but considering the allegation of the petitioners that there still remains some dispute in between the petitioners and the University authority unresolved, permission is accorded to the petitioners to raise such issues in an appropriate forum for ventilating their grievances.” 19. The aforesaid order shows that since block grant has been enhanced in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in O.J.C. No.10410 of 2000, the contempt petition was dismissed but allowed the petitioners to raise any such issues subsequently if remained unresolved. So, the major compliance for the year from 2013 to 2015 by raising of block grant to pay the salary cost at par with Government employees in aided or non-aided Colleges has been complied. But here the issue relates to non-payment of the salary from 1994 to 2013. So, it cannot be said that contempt proceeding has taken care of the cause of action spelt out in this writ petition. Rather, this writ petition arises as per the order passed in the contempt petition as the liberty has been given to the petitioners to raise the claim if at all remained unsolved. 20. So, it cannot be said that contempt proceeding has taken care of the cause of action spelt out in this writ petition. Rather, this writ petition arises as per the order passed in the contempt petition as the liberty has been given to the petitioners to raise the claim if at all remained unsolved. 20. No doubt the Division Bench of this Court in O.J.C. No.10410 of 2000 has amply clarified and explicitly declared that the teaching and non-teaching staff of Jyoti Vihar Higher Secondary School/+2 College are to be paid full salary cost of employees as their counterparts working in the Government/aided educational institutions and same has to be met from the block grant when they have been treated as University employees. There is no any adverse order against the petitioners and that order has been complied in 2015 for the period from 2013 to 2015 for which they are paid the full salary cost as per their counterparts in other Government/aided educational institutions. Thus, why their similar benefit for the year from 1994 to 2014 should not be reasonably considered in view of the judgment of this Court passed in O.J.C. No.10410 of 2000. It is clear from perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench in O.J.C. No.10410 of 2000 that since 6.1.1994 the Management of Jyoti Vihar Higher Secondary School was taken over by the University. Although there is plea of the opposite party No.3 that, that decision has been kept in abeyance by the administrator but how far the administrator is competent to stay the decision of the Syndicate is best known to them. It is revealed from the material on record that on 21.12.1999 the University while taking over the Management of the School declared the employees of the concerned School will be treated as University employees with effect from 30.8.1999. Thus, the order of keeping abeyance is no more to stand on the way except treating the petitioners as employees of the University. Apart from this, the State Government and University do not deny in their counter specifically about the claim of the petitioners that granting block grant from 1994-95 to 1998-99 and the employees of the School are treated as University employees with effect from 30.8.1999. When specific averments are not traversed by the opposite parties, same is found to be proved by the petitioners. 21. When specific averments are not traversed by the opposite parties, same is found to be proved by the petitioners. 21. As per the discussion made above, when the University took decision to treat the petitioners as employees from 1999 there is already block grant given from 1994-95 to 1998-99, the petitioners claim for salary cost at par with their counterparts working in Government and aided educational institutions will only be eligible from 1999. This view is taken keeping in view that the employees being engaged in the School are treated as University employees. The provision of the Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 would hardly to apply but they will be accommodated only by the block grant to be enhanced. It does not mean that they are not teachers working with similarly placed teachers before they are declared as employees of the University. In this regard, the doctrine of equality is to be considered as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 22. It is reported in (2015) 7 SCC 698 , State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Mala Banerjee, where Their Lordships have observed at para-6 in the following manner: “6. We also find ourselves unable to agree with the appellants’ submission that this is a policy matter and, therefore, should not be interfered with by the courts. In Federation of Railway Officers Assn. v. Union of India 2003 4 SCC 289 , this Court has already considered the scope of judicial review and has enumerated that where a policy is contrary to law or is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution or is arbitrary or irrational, the courts must perform their constitutional duties by striking it down. The appellants have not been able to explain why it chose to deny teachers the benefit of the second Kramonnati while granting this benefit to all the other employees, thus discriminating against them and violating their fundamental rights enshrined in articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. It is indeed paradoxical that teachers who prepare persons for employment and leadership are dealt with in a parodical attitude by the State. Further, we reiterate that no explanation is forthcoming for granting the second Kramonnati with effect from 1-8- 2003. It is indeed paradoxical that teachers who prepare persons for employment and leadership are dealt with in a parodical attitude by the State. Further, we reiterate that no explanation is forthcoming for granting the second Kramonnati with effect from 1-8- 2003. This is neither the date in the original Scheme nor justifiable on the basis of any other material available on the record. Many employees had completed twentyfour years of service by 1999; therefore, in postponing their second Kramonnati by four years, the appellants have departed from the basic object of the Scheme. The 3-9-2005 Order failed to explain the basis of this decision, and is thus arbitrary in nature and discriminatory towards the respondents and others in their position.” 23. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, it appears that the policy of the Government if contrary to law or in violation of the provisions of the Constitution or is arbitrary or irrational, the Court must perform their constitutional duty by striking it down. It is also reported in 2017 (8) Supreme 500 ; State of Punjab & others v. Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & others, where Their Lordships have observed at paras-16, 17 and 18 in the following manner: “16) Further, since the very inception, the educational qualification for appointment as Vocational Masters had been a degree or a diploma with three years’ experience as both the qualifications were placed at par. All persons were appointed by a common process of selection and they teach the same classes, performing the same work. No distinction can be brought about between the persons so appointed. It is only subsequently that the appellants designated some of the Vocational Masters as Vocational Lecturers and brought about an artificial distinction between the two. Even on account of redesignation of the degree holders and post graduates as vocational lecturers, there was no change in the responsibilities and the financial matters as between the degree holders and diploma holders before the alleged Notification which fact is duly admitted by the State. There is no distinction between the vocational lecturers and vocational masters and they form one unified cadre and class. There cannot be any discrimination between similarly situated persons, whether by way of a government notification or any amendment in the Rules. There is no distinction between the vocational lecturers and vocational masters and they form one unified cadre and class. There cannot be any discrimination between similarly situated persons, whether by way of a government notification or any amendment in the Rules. As far as nature of work is concerned, it is stated that the vocational masters are discharging their duty in the Senior Secondary Schools in the Engineering/non- Engineering trades and have the technical qualifications while the vocational lecturers are also discharging the same duties in the same schools. Both vocational masters and lecturers are teaching the same classes, i.e., 10+1 and 10+2 and hence the nature of work, responsibilities and duties being identical and the pay scales were also kept identical since 1978 onwards. 17) The principle of equality, is also fundamental in formulation of any policy by the State and the glimpse of the same can be found in Articles 38, 39, 39A, 43 and 46 embodied in Part IV of the Constitution of India. These Articles of the Constitution of India mandate that the State is under a constitutional obligation to assure a social order providing justice-social, economic and political, by inter alia, minimizing monetary inequalities, and by securing the right to adequate means of livelihood and by providing for adequate wages so as to ensure, an appropriate standard of life, and by promoting economic interests of the weaker sections. Meaning thereby, if the State is giving some economic benefits to one class while denying the same to other then the onus of justifying the same lies on the State specially in the circumstances when both the classes or group of persons were treated as same in the past by the State. Since Vocational Masters had been drawing same salary as Vocational Lecturers were drawing before the application of 4th pay commission, any attempt to curtail their salary and allowances would amount to arbitrariness which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law if no reasonable justification is offered for the same. 18) We are conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the basis of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible. However, it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees are treated as equal initially, they should continue to be so treated unless a different treatment is justified by some cogent reasons. 18) We are conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the basis of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible. However, it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees are treated as equal initially, they should continue to be so treated unless a different treatment is justified by some cogent reasons. In a case where the nature of duties is drastically altered, a differential scale of pay may be justified. Similarly, if a higher qualification is prescribed for a particular post, a higher scale of pay may be granted. However, if the basic qualifications and the job requirements continued to be identical as they were initially laid down, then the Court shall be reluctant to accept the action of the authority in according a differential treatment unless some good reasons are disclosed. Thus, the decisions relied upon by learned senior counsel are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable to the facts of the present case.” 24. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, it appears that the said decision has been also followed in Mrs. Daulen Baxla & others v. Union of India, represented through its Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Disability Affairs & others (W.P.(C) No.8205 of 2017, decided on 10.01.2018), where this Court have observed at paragraph-16 in the following manner: “16. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, it appears that the principle of equality is also fundamental in formulation of any policy by the State and same is also required in view of the clear provisions in Part IV of the Constitution to assure a social order providing justice-social, economic and political by minimizing monetary inequalities and by securing the right to adequate means of livelihood and standard of life, the State has got obligation to extend same benefit to such employees who are under one class. On the other hand, if the State is giving same economic benefit to one class and denying the same to other, the onus of justifying the same lies on the State specially in the circumstance when both classes or group of persons were treated as same by the State. On the other hand, if the State is giving same economic benefit to one class and denying the same to other, the onus of justifying the same lies on the State specially in the circumstance when both classes or group of persons were treated as same by the State. Now adverting to the present case, it appears that the petitioners have been treated equally with other Nursing staff of the Government of India and those staff have already got the benefit of 6th Pay Commission with upgraded Grade Pay with effect from 1.1.2006, there is no any justifiable reason produced by the State to show that the petitioners were to be given that benefit notionally from 1.1.2006. Annexure- 7 also does not explain why the decision was taken to extend the benefit of upgradation of Grade Pay notionally with effect from 1.1.2006.” 25. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court are squarely applicable to the present fact of the case. The teachers engaged in this School have performed same job as the teachers engaged in other Higher Secondary Schools. Similarly the nonteaching staff engaged in this School also performing the same duty as the employees of other Schools. So, the right to equity to be maintained so as not to bring any discrimination to frustrate the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, the Division Bench have rightly taken view that the petitioners should be paid the salary cost at par with the employees of the Government or aided educational institutions. 26. The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that in the event they are paid salary cost for arrears from 1.4.1994 till 2013, the claim should not be allowed in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 . In the said decision, Their Lordships observed at paragraph-7 in the following manner: “7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” 27. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, it is clear that if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties but at the same time the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply and the High Court should restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. But in the instant case, the entitlement for the teaching and non-teaching staff in the School was only decided in 2013 and further cause of action arose in 2015 in CONTC No.1585 of 2013 when the State Government paid only arrears from 2013 to 2015 but did not make payment for earlier arrears. At the same time, it appears that the writ petition has been filed in 2016. So, the principles as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court do not stand as a bar to relief claims in this case. Be that as it may, the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate does not fetch much force to allow the relief. The point is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 28. It is prayed in the writ petition to sanction and release arrear pay with all allowances and further prayer to declare the petitioners are entitled to retiral benefits if in the meantime they have retired. Nothing is made in the prayer for which period of arrear salary is asked for, but submission is made to allow same for the period from 01.04.1994 to 02.09.2013. It is already observed in the aforesaid para that from 30.8.1999 the University have declared them as employees of the University and same fact has not been transversed by the opposite parties. So, there is no any impediment to declare that the petitioners are employees of the University since 30.8.1999. There is already discussion made above that the block grant has been already made from 1994-1995 to 1998-1999. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that block grant has been directed to be enhanced to meet the salary cost of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners being treated equally with other teachers and non-teaching staff as their counterparts in other Government and Aided Colleges, they are entitled to similar salary cost which would be made by way of block grant to be enhanced and available from 30.8.1999 till 2013 and the O.Ps. are directed to make payment as such to the petitioners within four months. Since they are employees of the University, the normal rule of superannuation as per Rules of Sambalpur University and retiral benefits thereunder would apply. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.