Sukadev Sahoo Vs State and Ors.

“ The petitioner , therefore most humbly and respectfully prays that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, issue notice to the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order as at Annexure-1 shall not be quashed and as to why they shall not be directed to allow him to draw his salary in the Trained Matric Scale from 01.01.2009 till 31.01.2011, allowing him the benefit of 2006 pay revision in the Trained

¶18

Page 1 of 8

¶19

Matric Scale and thereafter calculate his retiral benefits on that basis and pay the same to him expeditiously and if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased, upon hearing the parties, to allow his writ petition by quashing the impugned order dated 21.02.2009 under Annexure-1 issuing on appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari and may further be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ directing the opposite parties to allow him to draw his salary in the trained matric Scale from 01.01.2009 till 31.01.203 2011, fix his salary in the 2006 Trained Matric Revisional Scale of Pay and thereafter calculate his retiral benefits and on that basis pay him the differential salary from 01.01.2009 till 31.01.2011 as well as his pension and other retiral benefits within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶20

And/or may pass any other or further order/orders, direction/directions n may dean fit and proper in the ends of justice;

¶21

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray, as in duty bound.

¶22

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as

¶23

an Assistant Teacher in Swapneswar Nodal U.P. School, Batijoda in the district of Jajpur w.e.f. 14.09.1970. He was then a matriculate. The post was an untrained post. It is stated that in the year 1974, the post of Assistant Teacher in U.P. School was converted to a trained matric post. In course of his service, the petitioner passed Intermediate Examination in Arts in the year 1978 and B.A. in the year 1980. As such, he was allowed to draw pay in the trained matric scale of pay Rs. 300-470/- w.e.f. 01.01.1981 under

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

the 1981 Rules. Subsequently, pursuant to the Resolution dated 16.07.1986 of the Government in erstwhile Education

¶26

and Youth Services Department, the petitioner having exercised his option came over to the revised the scale of pay of Rs. 840-1240/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986, with his pay being fixed at Rs. 892/- w.e.f. 01.01.1985. Further, the petitioner was also granted Time Bound Advancement scale of pay under the Orissa Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 1989 and1998 on account of stagnation. The school in question was taken over by the Government w.e.f. 01.04.1991. The petitioner was transferred to Khajuribati Primary School where he joined on 30.06.2007. He was again transferred to Ramachandi Nodal Upper Primary School, Dankari in the year 2008 where he continued to work till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.01.2011. In the meantime, by order dated 21.02.2009 of the District Inspector of Schools, Jajpur-II, Jajpur Road the grant of Trained Matric Scale of pay w.e.f. 01.05.1989 to the petitioner (Rs. 1080-1800/-) was cancelled. Copy of said order is impugned and enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner thereafter submitted several representations, but to no avail.

¶27

Page 3 of 8

¶28

The stand of the State Opposite Parties as per the Counter Affidavit is that as per corrigendum vide Resolution dated 27.08.1992, the earlier resolution was modified by segregating Untrained Intermediate scale at Rs. 975-1660/and Trained Matric Scale at Rs. 1080-1800/-. As the petitioner was Untrained Intermediate, his pay was re-fixed in the scale of pay of Rs. 975-1660/- w.e.f. 01.05.1989 under ORSP Rules, 1989 instead of scale of pay of Rs. 1080-1800/Copy of the Resolution dated 28.06.1991 is enclosed to the counter as Annexure-A/3. The issuance of the impugned order is sought to be justified thus.

¶29

Heard Mrs. S.Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R.Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶30

Mrs. Jena would submit that having granted the Trained scale of pay to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.1989, it was entirely unjustified and inequitable on the part of the State Authorities to withdraw/cancel the same and that too after lapse of nearly 10 years. Further, the impugned order does not specify the reason for withdrawal of the pay scale granted earlier. Mrs. Jena also relies upon a judgment passed by a

¶31

Page 4 of 8

¶32

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lambodar Panda-v-State of Odisha and Others¹ . She submits, her client’s case is squarely covered by the ratio of Lambodar Panda (supra).

¶33

Mr. A.R.Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand, submits that the resolution granting untrained matric scale to the teachers, of which the petitioner was one of the beneficiaries, was subsequently modified by Government Resolution dated 20.06.1991. Accordingly, the petitioner’s pay was modified, and the benefit was cancelled.

¶34

The facts of the case as narrated are not disputed, inasmuch as the petitioner was granted trained matric scale w.e.f. 01.05.1989. There is no dispute that she was a matriculate and had joined on 14.09.1970 in the school and at that time the post of Assistant Teacher was an untrained post. It became a trained matric post only w.e.f. 1974. Therefore, ordinarily any teacher having trained qualification would be entitled to the Trained Matric scale of pay. In the instant case, the petitioner passed Intermediate in Arts in the

¶35

1 OJC No. 12807 of 2011

¶36

Page 5 of 8

¶37

year 1978 and B.A. in the year 1980. Reference to the relevant portion of the Service Book of the petitioner, copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-2 shows that the Trained Matric scale of Rs.300-470/- was granted to her w.e.f. 01.01.1981 under 1981, Rules that is, after she became a graduate. In Lambodar Panda (supra), this Court has taken note of the fact that the Government of Odisha in the Department of Education and Youth Services, in its letter dated 10.08.1979, permitted appointment of untrained persons with higher qualification in M.E. Schools against Trained Matric posts. Though such teachers were untrained but having higher qualification, they were allowed to draw Untrained Intermediate scale of pay. The Division Bench also took note of the contentions raised with regard to the Government Resolution dated 28.06.1991 (Annexure-A/3 to the counter in the present case). After noting the above, the Division Bench held that the petitioner in the said writ petition was entitled to get the benefit of the scale of pay of Untrained Intermediate Teacher, which incidentally, is at par with trained matric scale. It is stated at the bar that the judgment in Lambodar Panda (supra) still holds the field as

¶38

Page 6 of 8

¶39

it has not been challenged as yet. The petitioner is similarly placed as the petitioner in the cited case. That apart, the impugned order under Annexure-1 does not specify the reason for issuance of the same. It is only in the Counter Affidavit that reasons have been supplied. It is well settled that if the order in question is without any reason, the same cannot be supplied through Counter Affidavit. Reference in this regard may be heard to the oft-quoted decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr

¶40

vs. The Chief Election Commissioner² .

¶41

Even otherwise, this Court finds, if the Resolution dated 28.06.1991 was to be relied upon then why did the authorities wait till as late as 2009 to give effect to the same. As it appears, the State itself is guilty of latches in implementing its own Resolution dated 28.06.1991. As a result, a benefit granted in monetary terms to one of its employees long since, has been attempted to be taken away. This is not only unjustified but also iniquitous, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶42

2 1978 AIR 851, 1978 SCR (3)272

¶43

Page 7 of 8

¶44

For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order under Annexure-1 withdrawing/cancelling the grant of Trained Matric scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.1989 cannot, for the reasons indicated hereinbefore, be sustained in the eye of law.

¶45

In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order under Annexure-1 is hereby quashed. It is needless to mention that all consequential benefits pursuant to this order shall be released in favour of the petitioner as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months,

¶46

having regard to the fact that he has retired since 2011.

¶47

……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

¶48

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 6^th May, 2024/ Deepak

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 13-May-2024 18:15:29

¶51

Page 8 of 8

Sukadev Sahoo v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukadev Sahoo v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Debabrata Mallick Vs Minatilata Mallick

Debabrata Mallick Vs Minatilata Mallick

Sapura @ Sapira Pangi Vs State of Odisha

Kishor Karmakar Vs State of Odisha

Somanath Mallick Vs State of Odisha