Prafulla Chandra Mallick v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WPC (OAC) No.1037 of 2016 Praflla Chandra Mallick ....

Petitioner Mr. S. Das, Advocate -versusState of Odisha and others ....

Opp. Parties Mr. R.C. Pattnaik, Standing Counsel for the S&M.E. Deptt.

CORAM:

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.

ORDER

25.11.2022 06.

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the School & Mass Education Department.

3.

Initially the Petitioner had approached the State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by filing O.A. No.1037(C) of 2016 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2016 under Annexure-8 and further for a direction to the Opposite Parties to disburse the differential arrear salary in Trained Graduate Scale of pay in terms of the letter of the Inspector of Schools vide office memo No.1677 dated 04.02.1992 from the date he has acquired B.Ed. training i.e., 18.03.2002 and disburse all differential salary to him as well as other service benefits within a

// 2 // stipulated period of time. However, in the meantime, State Administrative Tribunal has been abolished and the O.A. has been transferred to this Court and it has been reregistered as WPC (OAC) No.1037 of 2016.

4.

The factual background of the case as called out from the application filed by the Petitioner is that on 23.8.1982 the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher against a Trained Intermediate (TI) post and immediately on the very same day, the Petitioner joined his service. On 02.07.1983, a Circular was issued by the State Government by virtue of which the T.I. post in 3 class High School and one post of T.I. of 5 class High School was upgraded to the pot of trained graduate. Further, in view of such upgradation although the Petitioner was a T.I. Teacher, he was holding and discharging the duty assigned to a trained graduate post. On 4.2.1992, the appointment of the Petitioner was approved against trained graduate post which was extended from time to time upto 30th June, 1994.

Thereafter, the Government took over the school and the Petitioner continue to discharge his duty vide Government Notification dated 7.6.1994 and the Petitioner continue to discharge his service as a teacher in the said school. While continue in service, the Petitioner appeared in the B.Ed. Examination and acquired the degree on 18.3.2002.

// 3 // Petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior S.C.S. Cadre and was allowed the T.G. Scale w.e.f. 14.6.2006. In the year 2006, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2199(C) of 2006 for allowing him Trained Graduate Scale of pay w.e.f. 18.3.2002 instead of 14.6.2006. However, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. application at the stage of admission by directing the authorities to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner to T.G. Scale of Pay w.e.f. 18.3.2002. It appears that the Opposite Parties sat over the matter for almost a decade and finally by order dated 16.1.2016 under Annexure-7, the claim of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner was appointed against T.I. post and, therefore, the claim of the Petitioner that he was working against the T.G.

Post was not accepted by the Opposite Parties. Further, in the rejection order, it has been mentioned that the approval order against the T.G. post as per order dated 4.2.1992 was not valid in the eye of law. Challenging the aforesaid rejection order dated 16.1.2016 under Annexure-7, the present O.A. was filed before the Tribunal which was subsequently transferred to this Court on abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal.

5.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was appointed against a T.I. Post initially. Thereafter, by virtue of Government Circular dated 2.7.1983, the T.I. post was upgraded to

// 4 // T.G. post. In the said context, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jasobanta Mohanty -v.- State of Orissa and Ors., reported in 2016 (II) ILRCUT 384, submits that Circular dated 7.2.1983 has been deferred to and relied upon by this Court while granting the relief of T.G. Scale to the Petitioner from the date of his acquiring qualification. 6.

With regard to grant of trained graduate scale of pay, the persons acquiring the trained graduate qualification subsequently, learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to the judgment of this Court in the case of (Sri) Madhab Chandra Podh -v.- State of Orissa, 1998 (II) OLR 334. Further, referring to the said judgment, it is submitted that this Court in (Sri) Madhab Chandra Podh's case laid down the law that if T.I. Teacher acquires T.G. qualification subsequently, then he is entitled to take in the scale of pay from the date of acquisition of such T.G. qualification. The law laid down by this Court in the case of (Sri) Madhab Chandra Podh (supra) was challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision of this Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no doubt the persons who have acquired T.G. qualification subsequently are entitled to give T.G. Scale from the date of acquisition of T.G. qualification.

// 5 // 7.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the School & Mass Education Department, on the other hand, submits that the representation of the Petitioner was rejected by the authorities on the ground the Petitioner was not appointed as a T.G. Teacher and that the approval of the appointment against trained graduate post under Annexure-3 Series from 4.2.1992 to 30.06.1994 is not valid in law. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department submits that the decision taken by the Opposite Parties in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner vide impugned order dated 16.01.2016 is valid and legal and, as such, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

8.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon a careful analysis of the background facts and further upon going through the law governing the field, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner who was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher continued in such post and was holding a T.I. post. Further, the authorities after granting such approval cannot turn around and say that the approval is illegal and invalid. Therefore, the authority should have accepted that the Petitioner was holding a T.I. post till he acquired the T.G. qualification from 18.3.2002. Therefore, by applying the law laid by this Court in the cases of (Sri) Madhab Chandra Podh (supra), Jasobanta Mohanty (supra) and Bijayalaxmi

// 6 // Mishra v. State of Odisha and others (WPC (OAC) No.1096 of 2014 decided on 23.06.2021), the Petitioner should have been granted T.G. Scale from the date of acquisition of his B.Ed. qualification w.e.f. 18.3.2002.

9.

In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 16.1.2016 under Annexure-7 is illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law and, as such, the same is hereby quashed. Further the Opposite Parties are directed to calculate the arrear amount as well as the differential amount payable to the Petitioner by taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the T.G. Scale w.e.f. 18.3.2002 and, accordingly, the dues be calculated, sanctioned and disbursed within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis