State Of Orissa & Another vs Bhaskar Ch. Pradhan &
2023 Latest Caselaw 2682 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           FAO No.70 of 2015

         State of Orissa & Another       ....     Appellants
                                                Mr.S.K.Samal, AGA



                                        -versus-

         Bhaskar Ch. Pradhan &           ....   Respondents
         Another                              Mr. D.N. Rath, Adv.



                            COROM:
                 JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                                 ORDER

03.04.2023

I.A No.264 of 2023 Order No

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

2. This application has been filed by the petitioner for correction and modification of order dated 16.03.2023.

3. Heard.

4. Considering the averments made in the application itself, the order dated 16.03.2023 is recalled and fresh order is passed in FAO No.70 of 2015.

5. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

P.T.O // 2 //

ORDER 03.04.2023

FAO No.70 of 2015

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

2. Vakalatnama filed in Court today be kept on record.

3. Heard Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Appellants and Mr. D.N.Rath, learned counsel along appearing for the Respondents.

4. The present appeal has been filed by the State challenging the Judgment dtd.17.10.2012 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal in GIA Case No. 394 of 2011.

5. Mr. Samal, leaned AGA contended that even though the services of the Respondent No. 1 was validated w.e.f.26.09.1983, but the Respondent No. 1 will only be eligible to get the benefit of 1/3rd grant w.e.f. 01.06.1989, 2/3rd w.e.f. 01.06.1991 and full grant w.e.f. 01.06.1993. The Tribunal without proper appreciation, held the Respondent No. 1 entitled to get the benefit of 1/3rd w.e.f. 26.09.1988, 2/3rd w.e.f. 26.09.1990 and full grant w.e.f. 26.09.1992. Similarly, the Tribunal illegally directed the Appellants to extend the benefits of UGC scale of pay in favour of the Respondent No. 1 in terms of the Govt. Resolution dtd.06.10.1989 of the Department in Education and Youth Services. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned Judgment is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

// 3 //

6. Mr. Rath, learned counsel on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has rightly passed the order and since the services of the Respondent No. 1 was validated w.e.f.26.09.1983, she is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of grant-in-aid @ 1/3rd w.e.f.26.09.1988, 2/3rd w.e.f.26.09.1990 and full salary w.e.f.26.09.1992. Mr. Rath also relied on an order passed by the Directorate of Higher Education, Odisha vide order No. 44445 dtd.08.12.2016 pursuant to the G.O. No. 34836/HE dtd.07.12.2016, wherein similar benefit has been extended as has been directed by the Tribunal.

7. Mr. Samal, learned AGA though did not dispute the benefit extended in favour of similarly situated lecturers vide order dtd.08.12.2016 so relied on by the learned Sr. Counsel, but it is contended that the Tribunal should not have directed the Appellants to pay the UGC scale in favour of the Respondent No. 1 in terms of the Resolution dtd.06.10.1989.

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsels, this Court finds that since similar benefit has been extended in favour of similarly situated lecturers vide order dtd.08.12.2016, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity so far as the direction to extend the benefit of Grant-in-aid @ 1/3 w.e.f.26.09.1988, 2/3rd w.e.f. 26.09.1990 and full grant w.e.f. 26.09.1992 in favour of Respondent No. 1. However, considering the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, so far as the direction to pay the UGC scale of pay is concerned, it is clarified that on consideration of the claim of the

// 4 //

Respondent No. 1 in terms of the Resolution dtd.06.10.1989, if the Respondent No. 1 is found eligible to get the benefit of UGC scale of pay, then necessary order be passed in that regard with extension of the benefit thereof.

9. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat SUBRAT Digitally by SUBRAT signed

KUMAR KUMAR BARIK Date: 2023.04.04 BARIK 16:03:07 +05'30'