Orissa High Court
Purna Chandra Chand vs Stayabrata Sahu on 25 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CONTC No. 6188 of 2021
Purna Chandra Chand ..... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Advocate
Vs.
Stayabrata Sahu, IAS and ..... Opposite Parties
others
Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMAN
ORDER
25.04.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
04.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
this contempt petition has been filed due to non compliance of the order
dated 31.05.2021 passed in RVWPET No. 255 of 2013. He further
contended that such review petition was filed for review of the order dated
24.04.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 456 of 2013.
4. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate
contended that against the order passed in RVWPET No. 255 of 2013, the
State had preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1080 of 2022, but the
same was dismissed with the following observation and direction:-
"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment
though we have reservation on certain portions relating to the law of
precedence, for the reason that the respondent was working at the post of
the Head Master even before the School was granted aid by the
appellant-State of Orissa. The respondent has acquired B.Ed decree in
1994 and he has been granted the pay-scale as applicable to the Head
Master from 2001 that is after completion of seven years of service. From
1994 till today, the respondent has performed and worked as head
Master . We exercised our discretion not to interfere and, therefore, we
observe that the question of law is left open.
Recording the above, the special leave petition is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
However the State-opposite parties filed Miscellaneous Application
No. 518 of 2023 in SLP (C) No. 1080 of 2022 wherein the following order
was passed.
"It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
applicant/petitioner that the non-applicant/respondent has been paid full
salary as a Headmaster from 01.10.2001 onwards. However, for the
period between 01.06.1994 and 30.09.2001, as per the directions of the
High Court, the non-applicant/respondent was entitled to 'Charge
Allowance', as he was working as Headmaster-in-charge, but was being
paid salary as Trained Graduate Teacher. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that there is no concept of 'Charge Allowance' under
the relevant rule.
Issue limited notice to the non-applicant/respondent to examine
the aforesaid aspect.
Notice will be served by all modes, including dasti.
We clarify that if the payment of full salary for the period post
01.10.2001 is not made within a period of 10 days from today, the
applicant/petitioner will be burdened with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum from the date of the Judgment of the High Court till the actual
date of payment.
5. During course of hearing, query is made by this Court as to whether
the petitioner has been paid the Headmaster Scale of Pay or not. Mr. M.K.
Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has
been paid with the Headmaster Scale of pay, but he has not been paid the
Charge Allowance.
6. Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid order passed by the apex
Court, this Court is not inclined to pass any order at this stage. Thus, the
contempt petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to revive his
claim by filing appropriate application after disposal of M.A. No. 518 of
2023 in SLP (C) No. 1080 of 2022 by the apex Court.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Arun (M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
