Orissa High Court
Ajit Kumar Mishra vs State Of Odisha And Others on 8 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OAC) No.1070 of 2014
Ajit Kumar Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. P.C. Acharya, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. B. Singh, Standing Counsel, S&ME Department
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
8.9.2022
Order No.
02. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.C. Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr. B. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass
Education Department for State - Opposite Parties.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that he was appointed as an
Assistant Teacher with effect from 25th August, 1981 in Khajuri Sagar
U.P. School, Karanjia in the District of Mayurbhanj and upon
successful acquisition of training qualification he was allowed trained
matric scale of pay on 29th June, 1991.
4. Upon coming into force of ORSP Rules, 1998 and the relevant
time-bound advanced scale of pay, the applicant claimed TBA scale
of pay from 25th August, 1996, i.e. upon completion of 15 years from
the date of his initial appointment in the post. But the government
authorities rejected the claim of the Petitioner under Annexure-8 and
11 by granting him said scale of pay from 29th June, 2006 on the
ground that in the meantime the applicant was granted higher scale of
pay from 29th June, 1991 on acquisition of training qualification and
therefore 15 years service is to be counted from the date he was
granted higher pay and not from the initial joining date.
5. Mr. Singh, learned Standing Counsel submits on contrary that
since the subsequent grant of higher pay from the date of acquisition
of higher qualification by the Petitioner is not in dispute, further
higher pay in the time bound advancement scale should have been
calculated from such date when he was granted the higher pay.
6. Admittedly, the initial appointment of the Petitioner from 1981
in the post as Assistant Teacher till 1996 is not disputed. This court in
the case of Batakrishna Sahu (OJC No.115 of 1992, disposed of on
5th May, 1994) has observed that, the Petitioner having completed 15
years of service in the same post, he is entitled to the benefit of
advancement in the pay scale.
7. Relying on the case of Batakrishna Sahu (supra) and other
cases, this court again in the case of Bairagi Charan Sahoo v. State
of Orissa and Others (W.P.(C) No.6044 of 2012, disposed of on 17th
February, 2021), where the concerned Petitioner being a Hindi
Teacher was denied the TBA scale of pay on the ground of acquisition
of higher qualification of 'Ratna', has approached this court, and this
court held as follows:-
"11. Taking into consideration the principle of law, as
discussed above, and applying the same to the present
context, this Court is of the considered view that though the
petitioner joined as Hindi Teacher on 02.07.1982 with a
qualification of 13 Matric (Kovid) and subsequently he
acquired 'Ratna' qualification on 25.10.1996 and HTTC,
Hindi Training qualification on 29.12.1999 and was allowed
the Hindi trained scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000/- w.e.f.
29.12.1999, that itself cannot disentitle him to get the time
bound advancement scale of pay for continuous holding the
"post" or "grade" for 15 years. Thus, drawal of higher scale
of pay on account of acquisition of 'Ratna' qualification by
the petitioner being immaterial, he is eligible to enjoy the
benefit of time bound advancement scale of pay on
completion of 15 years for holding of Hindi teacher "post"
or "grade" w.e.f. 02.07.1982 in accordance with Finance
Department Memorandum dated 29.12.1987, which fact has
been clarified by the Government on 20.06.1991, as has
been dealt with in the judgment passed by this Court in
Balabhadra Sarangi mentioned supra. In the meantime,
though the petitioner has retired from service on attaining
the age of superannuation, but that ipso facto cannot
disentitle him to get the benefit, as claimed in the writ
petition.
12. In view of the facts and circumstances as well as the
law, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view
that the petitioner is entitled to get the time bound
advancement scale of pay on completion of 15 years of
service from the date of his initial appointment, i.e.,
02.07.1982. Therefore, this Court directs the opposite
parties to calculate the differential arrear salary and pay the
same to the petitioner forthwith preferably by 31st May,
2021, failing which it will carry an interest @ 9% per
annum."
8. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the continuance of the
Petitioner in his initial post of Assistant Teacher is not disturbed upon
acquisition of training qualification and grant of consequential higher
scale of pay. Therefore in view of the principles decided in the cases
cited above, the Petitioner herein is found entitled for TBA scale of
pay by counting 15 years of his service from the date of his initial
appointment. In other words, he is entitled to get such TBA scale of
pay applicable to him with effect from 25th August, 1996. Resultantly,
the impugned orders under Annexure-8 and 11 are set aside.
9. At this stage Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that in the meantime the Petitioner has retired on
superannuation in the year 2019. The Opposite Parties are therefore
directed to grant all consequential benefits upon fixation of such scale
of pay with effect from 25th August, 1996 within six months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. With aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is
disposed of.
11. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
