Orissa High Court
Dinabandhu Mahanty vs State Of Odisha And Others on 20 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OAC) No.3612 of 2013
Dinabandhu Mahanty .... Petitioner
Mr. P.C. Acharya, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. N.N. Satapathy, Standing Counsel, S&ME Department
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
20.2.2023
Order No.
07. 1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.C. Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr. N.N. Satapathy, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass
Education Department for State - Opposite Parties.
3. The Petitioner's case is that he was initially appointed as an
Assistant Teacher in Patsanipur New Government High School,
Patsanipur in the district of Mayurbhanj on 30th June, 1981.
Subsequently by Office Order No.28048 dated 28th September, 1989
of the Inspector of Schools, Mayurbhanj Circle, Baripada the services
of the Petitioner was approved as such in untrained scale with effect
from 1st June, 1983 (Annexure-1). The Petitioner acquired training
qualification, i.e. B.Ed. with effect from 24th March, 1990 and
accordingly he was allowed Trained Graduate scale of pay with effect
from 24th March, 1990. It is relevant to mention here that prior to 24th
March, 1990 he was receiving salary in untrained scale of pay at
Rs.935 - 1530/- and with effect from 24th March, 1990 he received
Rs.1400 - 2600/-.
4. Upon coming into force of the ORSP Rules, 1998 and the
relevant Time-Bound Advanced Scale of Pay, the Petitioner claimed
TBA scale of pay with effect from 1st June, 1998, i.e. upon completion
of 15 years from the date of his initial appointment in the post. But the
authorities granted the TBA Scale with effect from 24th March, 2005,
i.e. upon completion of 15 years of service from the date of acquiring
the training qualification. This is the subject matter of challenge in the
present writ petition.
5. Mr. Satapathy, learned Standing Counsel submits on behalf of
Opposite Parties - State that since the Petitioner got higher scale of
pay with effect from 24th March 1990, as per FD Office Memorandum
No.4314/F dated 29th January, 2002 he is not entitled to such higher
scale of pay, i.e. TBA Scale of pay prior to completion of 15 years
from the date of getting higher scale. In other words, the Petitioner is
only entitled for the TBA Scale upon completion of 15 years from 24th
March, 1990.
6. The issue is no more res integra. 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 case at hand, the approval order under Anneuxre-1 is
clear to the effect that the service of the Petitioner was approved in the
untrained scale of pay with effect from 1st June, 1983. Undoubtedly he
acquired higher qualification in the year 1990 and accordingly
received the trained scale of pay with effect from 24th March, 1990.
Since the continuance of the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in the
same post with effect from 1st June, 1983 is not disputed, in view of
the principles settled in the cases cited above he is certainly entitled
for the TBA Scale of Pay by counting 15 years of service from the
date of his initial approval, i.e. from 1st June, 1983. In other words, the
Petitioner is entitled for TBA scale of pay as applicable to him with
effect from 1st June, 1998. Resultantly, the prayer is allowed.
9. At this stage it is submitted by Mr. Acharya, learned counsel
that the Petitioner has retired on superannuation in the year 2020. The
Opposite Parties are therefore directed to grant all consequential
benefits upon fixation of such scale of pay with effect from 1st June,
1998, within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
10. With the 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
