WP(C)/17548/2013
2021 Latest Caselaw 4622 Ori

W.P.(C) No. 17548 of 2013

04. 06.04.2021 This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

Heard Mr. M.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State opposite parties.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite party no.1 to release UGC scale of pay at par with other similarly situated lecturers, who have already been granted such scale of pay by following the judgment dated 19.05.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No. 11878 of 2005, which has been confirmed by the apex Court, with all differential arrear salary.

Mr. M.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner stands on similar footing with Smt. Manjushree Patnaik and is entitled to get UGC scale of pay, as has been extended to her. It is contended that Smt. Manjushree Patnaik had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 11878 of 2005, which was allowed in her favour on 19.05.2006. Against the said judgment, the State preferred Civil Appeal No. 1318 of 2011, in view of the fact that her college had got recognition and affiliation in respect of +3 Degree wing after 01.04.1989, which was dismissed by the apex Court. Subsequently, an I.A. arising out of Civil Appeal No. 1318 of 2011 was filed by the State before the apex Court and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2013. Thereafter, the Government in Higher Education Department has extended the benefit of UGC scale of pay to Smt. Manjushree Patnaik in compliance of the order of the apex Court. Therefore, the petitioner, having stood in the same footing, such benefit should be extended to the petitioner.

Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties disputes such fact and contends that the petitioner is not standing on same footing. It has been specifically denied in the counter affidavit that such fact leading to extend the benefit of revised UGC scale of pay cannot be applicable in case of the present petitioner. It is further contended that the judgment delivered by the apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1318 of 2011 (State of Orissa v. Manjushree Pattnaik) as well as the I.A. arising out thereof is applicable to a particular case, but not in rem. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner, as made in the instant writ petition, to extend such benefit at par with Smt. Manjushree Patnaik is not tenable. It is further contended that the case of the petitioner may be covered by the judgment of the apex Court in State of Orissa v. Aswini Kumar Das, 1998 (3) SCC 613, where the apex Court held that in respect of extension of revised UGC scale of pay benefit 01.04.1989 is the cutoff date, by which the lecturer concerned must have been within the fold of grant-in-aid/is eligible to get grant-in-aid and the +3 Degree wing in the college concerned must have been opened with Government concurrence and University affiliation. It is further contended that the law laid down by the apex Court in Aswini Kumar Das (supra) has not been followed in subsequent judgment of Smt. Manjushree Patnaik (supra), but the same has been taken note of in the case of State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436. Consequentially, if any UGC scale of pay is admissible to the lecturer, that should be in consonance with the law laid down in the cases of Aswini Kumar Das and Mamata Mohanty mentioned supra.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court finds that admittedly the petitioner claims UGC scale of pay admissible to the post held by him at par with Smt. Manjushree Patnaik. That itself cannot be applicable and the same has been disputed in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties. But no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to substantiate the claim as to how the said judgment is applicable to him, so that the relief can be granted to the petitioner. But fact remains similar question had come up for consideration by the apex Court in Aswini Kumar Das and Mamata Mohanty (supra), where the apex Court has already laid down for release of grant-in-aid in favour of eligible lecturers. If the petitioner has not satisfied the condition stipulated therein, in that case he may not be eligible to get. But his case may be considered in the light of the judgments of the apex Court in the cases of Aswini Kumar Das and Mamata Mohanty mentioned supra.

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

As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

GDS ...............................

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE