Orissa High Court
Debendranath Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others on 9 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OAC) No.2151 of 2012
Debendranath Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. P.C. Acharya, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 09.05.2023
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as
learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents
annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with
the following prayers:
"i) Let the order under Annexure-12 be
quashed;
ii) Let the opp. parties no.1, 2, 3 and 4 be
directed to release the final pensionary benefits on the
basis of papers submitted vide Annexure-11 i.e. in
Trained Metric scale;
iii) Let the opp. parties be directed to release
the pension along with gratuity and any other dues
forthwith, with interest;
Or
May pass any other orders as this Hon'ble court
// 2 //
deem fit and proper."
4. Mr. P.C. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submitted that the Petitioner was an Assistant Teacher and has retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.08.2007
while he was serving as Headmaster of Alipingal U.P. School,
Alipingal in the district of Jagatsinghpur. The Petitioner was
appointed as Assistant Teacher in B.W. Cooperative M.E. School,
Markandpur by the Secretary of School in the scale of pay Rs.80/- to
135/- on 1.2.1969. Thereafter, the school got recognition by the
Opposite Party No.1 to 3 w.e.f. 1.6.1973. The school was became
aided with effect from 1.3.1974 and, accordingly, it came under the
direct payment scheme w.e.f. 1.4.1974. Finally, the school was taken
over from 1.4.1991 by the Opposite Party No.1. As such, Mr.
Acharya submitted that the Petitioner became a Government
employee since 1.4.1991. It is also contended before this Court that
the school was recognized by D.I. of schools, Jagatsinghpur vide his
letter No.6639 dated 08.11.1973 from the Academic Sessions 1973-
74. Accordingly, the pay of the Petitioner was revised and refixed
under the ORSP Rules, 1974 in the scale of pay of Rs.225-340/-
w.e.f. 1.1.1974. A copy of the pay fixation statement dated 4.2.1976
is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1.
5. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
further contended before this Court that while the Petitioner was
continuing as Assistant Teacher in the above named school, the
Petitioner passed I.A. Examination on 6.6.1980 and, accordingly, the
Petitioner was allowed Trained Matric Scale vide M.C. Resolution
No.82 dated 18.1.1981 in the scale of Rs.300-470/-. As such scale of
the Petitioner has already been approved by the D.I. of Schools,
Jagatsingpur. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that
// 3 //
thereafter the Petitioner was getting scale of pay applicable to the
Trained Matriculate Teachers as the Petitioner having requisite
qualification and, accordingly, he was also covered under ORSP
Rules, 1985 w.e.f. 1.1.1985 and thereafter under ORSP Rules, 1989,
under which, the pay of the Petitioner was revised to Rs.1080-1800/-
in the trained matric scale of pay w.e.f. 1.5.1989.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in the
year 1982, the Government of Orissa in the Department of Education
and Youth Service Department published a Resolution dated
25.08.1982. Further, referring to the said Resolution appended to the
writ petition as Annexure-4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
specifically referring to Clause-(iv) of the aforesaid Resolution,
submitted the Petitioner is directly covered under the aforesaid
Resolution under Annexure-4. On perusal of the said Clause-(iv),
this Court observes that it has been specifically mentioned that
untrained persons having higher qualification already continuing as
teacher in Primary, M.E., High Schools against trained matric posts
and enjoying fixed salary of Rs.225/- P.M. will also get the scale
prescribed for trained matriculates with effect from the date of issue
of this resolution and they may continue against the posts in the
above scale of pay if they like. The aforesaid Resolution was in force
and valid till now and that the same has not been withdrawn or
superseded by any of the resolution. Mr. Acharya further referring to
a judgment of this Court in the matter of Lambodhara Panda v. State
of Orissa and others (O.J.C. No.12807 of 2001, decided on
07.01.2011) submitted before this Court that an identical case had
came up before the Division Bench. The Division Bench vide
judgment dated 07.01.2011 has categorically held in pargarph-5,
// 4 //
which is quoted herein below:-
"From the above, it appears, in 1985 Pay Rules, the
untrained intermediate teachers and trained Matric
teachers were allowed one scale of pay, whereas in
1989 revision of pay, the untrained Intermediate
teachers, who were drawing trained Matric scale of
pay, have been allowed the scale of pay of Rs.975-
1660/- and the trained Matric teachers have been
allowed the scale of pay of Rs.1080-1800/-. The letter
bearing No.XIIEP.Sch.9/82 29253/EYS dated 25.8.82
(Annexue-4) reveals that a decision has been taken to
the effect that untrained persons having higher
qualification already continuing as teachers in
Primary, M.E. Schools and High Schools against
trained Matric posts and enjoying fixed salary of
Rs.225/- P.M. will also get the scale prescribed for
trained matriculates with effect from the date of issue
of that resolution and they may continue against the
posts in the above scale of pay if they like."
7. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to scale of pay of
Rs.1080-1800/- as per the ORSP Rules, 1989 and, accordingly, his
retiral dues as well as pensionary benefits be calculated taking into
consideration the aforesaid scale of pay with subsequent modification
to that.
8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
Opposite Parties, on the other hand, referring to the instruction
received vide letter No.194 dated 1.2.2023 from the Block Education
Officer, Jagatsinghpur, submitted before this Court that prior to
submission of final pension papers of the Petitioner, the pay of the
Petitioner was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.1080-30-1440-EB-30-
1800 being a trained matriculate employee.
9. On perusal of the instruction received from the Block
Education Officer, Jagatsinghpur, a copy of which is placed before
// 5 //
this Court for perusal, it appears that in course of allowing the final
pension, the Controller of the Accounts, Educational Employees
Pension & P. Fund, Odisha, Bhubaneswar has revised the pay of the
Petitioner and allow the scale of pay of Rs.975-25-1150-EB-1660/-.
It has also been reflected in the said letter that the Controller of
Accounts is being moved to furnish the reasons. In such view of the
matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State
submitted before this Court that steps have been taken to resolve the
dispute.
10. In reply to the submission made by the learned Additional
Standing Counsel, Mr. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner drawing attention to the impugned order dated 28.04.2012
under Annexure-12, submitted that although the pension papers of
the Petitioner was sent by the Pension Sanctioning Authority to the
office of the Controller of Accounts, however, the office of the
Controller of Accounts raised an objection with regard to scale of pay
of the Petitioner and they have returned the pension papers with an
observation that the scale of pay needs to be reexamined by the PSA
as the sale of pay which has been recommended by the PSA is
Rs.1080-1800/- which should have been Rs.975-1660/-, according to
the Controller of Accounts. Mr. Acharya further contended that such
an observation of the Controller of Accounts is completely erroneous
and illegally. He further contended that not only the observation is
illegal and contrary to the Resolution under Annexure-4 as well as
judgment of this Court by the Division Bench. He further contended
that the authorities are sitting over the matter since April, 2012 and
no steps have been taken to resolve the anomaly raised in the
impugned letter.
// 6 //
11. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties
and upon a careful examination of the factual background of the case
as well as on analysis of the legal position, this Court is of the
considered view that the Petitioner's case is squarely covered under
Clause-(iv) of Resolution dated 25.08.1982 under Annexure-4 as well
as the case of the Petitioner is also covered by the ratio of the
judgments in Lambodhara Panda's case (supra).
12. On examination of the record, this Court is found that the
Petitioner is a trained matric teacher and he was allowed for trained
matric scale pursuant to the decision of the Government vide
Resolution dated 25.08.1982 under Annexure-4. From the letter
under Annexure-12, as it appears, The Controller of Accounts under
misconception has raised the query which remains unresolved by the
Opposite Parties for almost a decade, as a result of which, the
Petitioner has suffered. The query raised by the Controller of
Accounts under Annexure-12 should have been easily clarified by the
Departmental Authorities by referring to the Resolution dated
25.08.1982 under Annexure-4 and the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court in Lambodhara Panda's case (supra).
13. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the
conclusion that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the
above noted Resolution dated 25.08.1982 under Annexure-4 as well
as the case of Lambodhara Panda's case (supra) which has decided
an identical issue and, as such, the ratio laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court squarely applies to the fact of the present case.
14. In such view of the matter, the Opposite Parties are directed to
sanction and disburse the pensionary benefits of the Petitioner as well
as any arrear retiral dues which are pending by taking into
// 7 //
consideration the scale of pay of the Petitioner as would be Rs.1080-
1800/- as per ORSP Rules, 1989 from the year 1989 and,
accordingly, the same be paid to the Petitioner within a period of two
months from the date of communication of the certified of this order.
Further, considering the delay in processing the pensionary benefits
of the Petitioner, this Court directs that the Opposite Parties are liable
to pay interest on the amount that is due and admissible to the
Petitioner. Accordingly, by following the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of D.D. Tiwari(D) through
Lrs. -v.- Uttar Haryana Bijli Bitaran Nigam, reported in
(2014) 8 SCC 894, the Opposite Parties are directed to pay interest
on the arrear amount @ 8% per annum till the actual amount is paid
to the Petitioner.
15. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is
disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEBASIS AECH
Reason: Authentication
Location: orissa high court
Date: 15-May-2023 13:17:51
