Bijaya Laxmi Panigrahy & vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 9 Ori

Orissa High Court

Bijaya Laxmi Panigrahy & vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 2 January, 2024

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

        WPC(OAC) Nos.1365 of 2010 & 241 of 2006

 In the matter of an application under Section 19 of the
 Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
                          ..................

                      WPC(OAC) No.1365 of 2010

 Bijaya Laxmi Panigrahy &     ....                                  Petitioners
 Another
                        -versus-

 State of Odisha & Others                   ....             Opposite Parties


          For Petitioner         :      M/s.P. Nayak.

          For Opp. Parties :            Addl. Government Advocate
                                        Mr.S.K. Samal, AGA
                                        Mr. S.B. Jena, Adv. for O.P.4

                       WPC(OAC) No.241 of 2006

 P. Daleya Reddy                            ....                     Petitioner

                                     -versus-

 State of Odisha & Others                   ....             Opposite Parties


          For Petitioner         :      M/s.S.B. Jena, S. Behera &
                                        J.K. Swain.

          For Opp. Parties :            Addl. Government Advocate
                                        Mr.S.K. Samal, AGA.
                                        Mr. P. Nayak, Adv. for O.P.4

PRESENT:


     THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Date of Hearing:31.07.2023 and Date of Judgment:22.09.2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               // 2 //




Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Since both the Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a

direction on the Opposite Parties to grant Trained Graduate

scale of pay from the date of acquisition of the B.Ed.

qualification and there is rival claim with regard to such

sanction of TGT scale of pay, both the Writ Petitions were

heard analogously and disposed of vide the present

common order.

2. W.P.(C) (OAC) No.1365 of 2010 has been filed inter

alia with the following prayer:-

"Under the circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to take necessary steps allowing Trained Graduate Scale with effect from 16.11.83.

And the recommendation made under Annexure-5 by the respondent No.3 for grant of I.G.T. Scale in favour of the respondent No.4 be quashed.

And grant all service benefits to the applicant including arrears from 16.11.83;

And pass any other order/ orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in this case;

And allow this Original Application with cost".

3. Similarly, W.P.(C) (OAC) No.241 of 2006 has been filed

inter alia with the following prayer:-

" Under the circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to quash the order of promotion under Annexure-8

// 3 //

And further be pleased to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to Junior SES cadre from the date his junior eg. Opp.Party No.4 has been promoted to such posts;

And also further be pleased to direct the authorities to pay the petitioner all consequential financial benefits retrospectively within a time schedule;

And also further be pleased to direct the Opp.Party No.2 to take necessary steps for allowing Trained Graduate Scale of pay with effect from 2.5.88 in favour of the petitioner based on the recommendations made on 29.12.05 under Annexure-7

And pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in this case".

4. It is the case of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) (OAC) No.

1365 of 2010 hereinafter called as the '2010 application'

that the Petitioner was appointed as an Asst. Teacher as

against the Matric C.T. post in Narendrapur High School

and he was fitted as against Class-VIII(c) vide order dated

21.08.1978. The Petitioner in W.P.(C)(OAC) No.241 of 2006

hereinafter called as the '2006 application' was appointed

also as an Asst. Teacher as against the Matric C.T. Post in

Narendrapur High School vide order dated 17.11.1978 and

he was fitted as against Class-VII(B). While the Petitioner of

the 2006 application has been arrayed as Opposite Party

No.4 by the Petitioner in the 2010 application, Petitioner in

2010 application has been arrayed as Opposite Party No.4

in the 2006 application.

// 4 //

4.1. It is the further case of the Petitioner in the 2010

application that while continuing as an Asst. Teacher

against a Matric C.T. post w.e.f. from his date of joining, he

passed the B.Ed on 16.11.1983. Similarly Petitioner in the

2006 application acquired the B.Ed. qualification on

14.09.1982. While the matter stood thus and prior to

acquisition of such B.Ed. qualification, basing on the

yardstick prescribed by the Government on 08.07.1981 and

the direction of Opposite Party No.1 to implement the

yardstick w.e.f. 01.06.1983, Opposite Party No.2 sanctioned

the posts of Addl. Section Teacher in respect of Class-VI,

VII, VIII & IX in Narendrapur High School.

4.2. While as against Addl. Section in Class-IX(B), one

TGT post was sanctioned vide order dated 30.06.1982, two

Trained Intermediate posts were sanctioned as against

Class-VIII(C) and VIII(B). Not only that Government vide

circular dtd.18.06.1983 also clarified that untrained

graduates working against the TGT post, shall be eligible to

get Higher Scale of pay without prior approval of the

Government when they acquire B.Ed. qualification. The

order dated 30.06.1982 was communicated to the

Headmaster of the School vide letter dated 21.09.1983

under Annexure-2. But in the meantime Opposite Party

// 5 //

No.3 vide his letter dated 15.10.1991 requested the

Headmasters of Non-Govt. High School to implement the

revised yardstick so published by the Government on

08.07.1981. Basing on such request made by Opposite

Party No.3 on 15.10.1991, the Managing Committee of

Narendrapur High School following the provisions

contained under Rule-8(2)(B) of the Orissa Education

Recruitment Etc. & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974

promoted the Petitioner of the 2010 application to the post

of Trained Graduate Teacher as against Class- VIII(C) and

the Petitioner of the 2006 application against an Addl.

Sections, which was not sanctioned by the Government.

4.3. On receipt of the proposal from the School, Opposite

Party No.3 vide his letter dated 23.05.1992 under

Annexure-3-Series prepared the entitlement of the

Petitioner of the 2010 application towards Trained

Graduate Scale and Trained Intermediate Scale and

calculated the arrear amount payable to the Petitioner up to

31.03.1991. But in the meantime since the School in

question was taken over by the Government w.e.f

07.06.1994, no further action could be taken on the same.

But after such taken over of the School, Government vide

G.O. No.12386 / SMS dtd.27.4.1995 under Annexure-4

// 6 //

sanctioned 309 posts of Trained Graduate and Trained

Intermediate post with regard to Ganjam Circle,

Berhampur. Sanction was accorded to upgrade 12 posts in

different Schools from Trained Matric to Trained

Intermediate and 72 posts from Trained Intermediate to

Trained Graduate. In respect of the Petitioners' school, 1

post was upgraded to Trained Intermediate and 2 posts to

Trained Graduate.

4.4. On receipt of the letter dated 27.04.1995, the

Headmaster of the School vide his letter dated 12.11.1995

recommended the name of the Petitioner of the 2010

application to adjust him as against Trained Intermediate

post and also sought for clarification with regard to

sanction of Trained Graduate Scale. On the face of such

letter issued by the Headmaster on 12.11.1995, Opposite

Party No.3 while seeking certain clarification vide order

dated 07.12.1995 under Annexure-5 indicated that

Opposite Party No.4/Petitioner in the 2006 application

since had acquired the B. Ed qualification earlier than the

Petitioner of the 2010 application, requested the

Headmaster of the School to clarify the position keeping in

view the guidelines issued by the Government on

27.04.1995 vide Annexure-4.

// 7 //

4.5. The Petitioner of the 2010 application being aggrieved

by sought clarification sought by Opposite Party No.3, vide

order dtd.07.12.1995 challenged the same before the

Tribunal in O.A. No. 87(B) of 1996. The Tribunal vide its

order dated 06.08.2000, while disposing the matter though

directed Opposite Party No.2-Director Secondary Education

to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner of the 2010

application as made in Annexure-9 within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of this order, but clearly

held that the Petitioner of the 2010 application is not

entitled to get the benefit of Trained Graduate Scale w.e.f.

16.11.1983 and disallowed such claim of the Petitioner.

4.6. The Petitioner of 2010 application being aggrieved by

order dtd.06.08.2000, approached this Court in OJC

No.9980/2001. This Court while issuing notice of the

matter vide order dated 24.06.2002, passed an interim

order in Misc. Case No.13676/2001 by directing that

Trained Graduate Scale of pay will not be sanctioned either

in favour of the Petitioner of the 2010 application or in

favour of the Petitioner of the 2006 application. The interim

order passed by this Court on 24.06.2002 continued till the

matter was ultimately disposed of vide order dated

22.03.2010. This Court while disposing the matter held

// 8 //

that the order passed by the Tribunal on 06.03.2000 is

contrary to the ratio decided by this Court in the case of

Rama Panigrahi vs. State of Orissa, reported in

2003(I)OLR-438. While holding so, this Court disposes of

the matter by granting liberty to the Petitioner of 2010

application to work out his remedy either before the

Director, Secondary Education or approach the Tribunal as

the case may be. Pursuant to such liberty granted by this

Court in its order dated 23.03.2010, the 2010 application

was filed by the Petitioner with the prayer as indicated

hereinabove. However, during pendency of the matter since

the Original Petitioner died, his legal heirs have been

substituted as Petitioner No.1(a) and 1(b).

4.7. Similarly, 2006 application was filed by the Petitioner

challenging the Office order dated 30.09.2005 so issued by

Opposite Party No.3 in promoting the Petitioner of the 2010

application from LSES cadre to Junior SES cadre ahead of

the Petitioner and with a further prayer to direct Opposite

Party No.2 to take necessary step on the recommendation

made by Opposite Party No.3 in his favour on 29.12.2005

under Annexure-7.

// 9 //

4.8. It is the case of the Petitioner of the 2006 application

that he was appointed against the vacant post of Matric, CT

in Narendrapur High School on 17.11.1978. The School

was taken over by the Government w.e.f. 07.06.1994. But

prior to such taken over, the staffing pattern of the School

was one headmaster, four Trained Graduate Teachers in

Science and Arts, two I.ACT post, six Matric C.T. post, one

Classical Teacher, one Hindi Teacher and one P.E.T. After

taken over the School w.e.f. 07.06.1994 and pursuant to

G.O. No.12386/SMS dtd.27.4.1995 under Annexure-4, 309

posts of Trained Intermediate and Trained Graduates were

upgraded w.e.f. 01.06.1983. Out of such up-gradation of

309 posts, Petitioners' School was permitted up-gradation

of one post from Trained Matric to Trained Intermediate

and two posts from Trained Intermediate to Trained

Graduate. Pursuant to Government order dtd.27.04.1995,

the Petitioner of the 2006 application, who had acquired

the B.Ed. on 14.09.1982 was promoted from the post of

Trained Matric to Trained Intermediate for the period from

01.06.1983 to 01.05.1988 and allowed the benefit of

Trained Graduate scale w.e.f. 02.05.1988.

4.9. In the meantime basing on such sanction and up

gradation of Trained Matric and Trained Intermediate post

// 10 //

vide order dated 27.04.1995, the Headmaster of the School

vide his letter dtd.12.11.1995 recommended the name of

one Antaryami Patra and the Petitioner of the 2010

application by fitting them against two upgraded trained

graduate posts w.e.f. 01.06.1983 and 01.06.1984

respectively. The Petitioner of the 2006 application was

fitted as against one upgraded T.I. Post w.e.f. 01.06.1984.

But the recommendation of the Headmaster, was not

accepted by Opposite Party No.3 and while holding so, vide

letter dtd.07.12.1995, Opposite Party No.3 clearly held that

adjustment of the Petitioners of both the cases are not in

terms of the guidelines issued by the Government on

27.04.1995.

4.9. On receipt of the letter dated 07.12.1995 under

Annexure-1 to the 2006 application, Headmaster of the

School vide his letter dtd.15.12.1995 under Annexure-2

submitted a revised proposal by recommending up

gradation of the Petitioner of the 2006 application as

against Trained Graduate Teacher w.e.f. 14.09.1982 and in

respect of other Petitioner w.e.f. 16.11.1983. But vide letter

dated 19.02.1996 under Annexure-3 when Opposite Party

No.3 again raised objection, required clarification was made

by the Headmaster vide letter dated 26.02.1996 under

// 11 //

Annexure-4. After series of correspondences between the

Headmaster and Opposite Party No.3, Opposite Party No.3

vide his order dtd.04.05.1996 fitted one Antaryami Patra

and late Sri Satyabadi Sahu against two up gradated TGT

posts w.e.f. 01.06.1983 and 01.08.1985 respectively. As Sri

Satyabadi Sahu died on 01.05.1983, the Petitioner of the

2006 application was fitted against the upgraded TI post

from 01.06.1983 to 01.05.1988 and against the upgraded

TGT posts w.e.f. 02.05.1988, as he had passed the B.Ed. on

14.09.1982.

4.10. It is contended that the Petitioner of the 2010

application challenging the recommendation made by the

Headmaster in favour of the Petitioner of the 2006

application approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.87(B) of

1996. But vide order dtd.06.03.2000 under Annexure-5,

the claim of the Petitioner of the 2010 application to get the

benefit of TGT scale w.e.f. 16.11.1983 was disallowed.

Being aggrieved by such order, OJC No.9980/2001 was

filed before this Court and this Court while issuing notice of

the matter passed an interim order on 24.06.2002 by

directing that neither of the Petitioner in both the

applications will get the benefit of TGT scale of pay vide

Annexure-6. During pendency of the matter before this

// 12 //

Court when vide order dtd.30.09.2005, the Petitioner of the

2010 application was promoted from LSES cadre to Junior

SES cadre by allowing Trained Graduate Scale of pay in his

favour, the matter was challenged by the Petitioner of the

2006 application. Prayer has also been made to act upon

the recommendation of the Opposite Party No.3 so made in

favour of the Petitioner of the 2006 application on

29.12.2005 under Annexure-7.

5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Government Advocate

for the State taking into account the rival claim raised by

both the Petitioners made his submission basing on the

stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite

Party No.3. It is contended that the Petitioner of the 2010

application was appointed as an Asst. Teacher on

21.08.1978 as a Science Teacher against Class-VIII(C) by

the Managing Committee of Narendrapur High School and

his services was regularized w.e.f. from the date of entry in

service.

5.1. It is contended that the Petitioner of the 2010

application was appointed as against as Class-VIII(B)/VII(C)

for temporary period of six months by the then Managing

Committee of Narendrapur High School against Trained

// 13 //

Matric post on 16.11.1978. Since by the time the School

was taken over w.e.f. 07.06.1994, the services of the

Petitioner of the 2010 application was not approved, his

services were approved as against the Matric C.T post. But

in the meantime when recommendation was made in favour

of the Petitioner of the other case by Opposite Party No.3

vide his letter dtd.07.12.1995, the matter was challenged

by the Petitioner of 2010 application before the Tribunal in

O.A No.87(B)/1996. The said Original Application was

disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 06.08.2000.

But while disposing the matter, the Tribunal clearly held

that the Petitioner of the 2010 application is not entitled

to get the benefit of Trained Graduate scale w.e.f.

16.11.1983. Challenging such order passed by the

Tribunal on 06.08.2000 when the Petitioner of the 2010

application approached this Court in OJC No.9980 of 2001,

this Court while issuing notice of the matter on 24.06.2002

passed an interim order by directing that neither of the

Petitioners in both the cases will be sanctioned with TGT

scale of pay. Because of such order passed by this Court

on 24.06.2002 neither of the Petitioners were extended with

the benefit of Trained Graduate Scale of pay from the date

of their respective claim.

// 14 //

5.2. The Writ Petition in OJC No.9980 of 2001 was

ultimately disposed of vide order dated 23.03.2000. In the

said order, this Court held that the order passed by the

Tribunal on 06.08.2000 is contrary to the ratio decided in

the case of Rama Panigrahi vs. State of Orissa, reported

in 2003(I)OLR-438. This Court accordingly while disposing

the matter granted liberty to the Petitioner of the 2010

application to work out his remedy. Pursuant to the order

dtd.23.03.2010, the 2010 application has been filed by the

Petitioner.

5.3. It is further contended that during pendency of the

matter before this Court in OJC No.9980 of 2001 and

subsequent to taken over of the School w.e.f. 07.06.1994,

the gradation list was published by Opposite Party No.3 in

the cadre of LSES. In the said gradation list so published

in respect of LSES cadre in the year 2004, the Petitioner of

the 2010 application was placed at Sl. No.70 and the

Petitioner of the 2006 application was placed at Sl. No.74.

In the eligibility list published, subsequently showing the

eligibility to get the benefit of promotion from LSES cadre to

Junior SES cadre, the Petitioner of 2010 application was

placed at Sl. No.762 and the Petitioner of the 2006

application was placed at Sl. No.804.

// 15 //

5.4. It is contended that neither of the Petitioner in both

the cases have ever challenged their placement in the

gradation list of LSES cadre so published in the year 2004,

wherein the Petitioner of the 2010 application was placed

above the Petitioner of the 2006 application. Basing on

such placement in the gradation list in LSES cadre, the

Petitioner of the 2010 application was given the benefit of

promotion to Junior SES cadre vide order dated

30.09.2005. Similarly taking into account the placement of

the Petitioner of the 2006 application, he was extended with

the benefit of promotion to Junior SES cadre vide office

order dtd.13.06.2006.

5.5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State

accordingly contended that since after taken over of the

School w.e.f. 07.06.1994, the services of both the Teachers

were approved as against the Matric CT post which is in the

rank of LSES cadre, in the gradation list published in the

year 2004, the Petitioner of the 2010 application was placed

at Sl. No.70 and the Petitioner of 2006 application was

placed at Sl. No.74. Similarly in the eligibility list so

published, the Petitioner of the 2010 application was placed

at Sl. No.762 and the other Petitioner was placed at Sl.

No.804. Since the gradation list of LSES cadre so

// 16 //

published in the year 2004 was never assailed by any of the

Petitioners and basing on that position in the gradation list,

the Petitioner of the 2010 application was promoted to the

rank of Junior SES vide order dated 30.09.2005 and other

Petitioners vide order dtd.13.06.2006, the claim of the

Petitioner to get the benefit of TGT scale from the date of

passing of their B.Ed. examination is not sustainable in the

eye of law.

5.6. It is also contended that during pendency of the

matter while the Petitioner in the 2010 application died and

his legal heirs have been substituted, the Petitioner in 2006

application has also retired after availing the benefit of

promotion to Junior SES cadre so extended in his favour

vide order dtd.13.06.2006. It is accordingly contended that

the prayer made in both the writ petitions are completely

misconceived and not entertainable

6. I have heard Ms.P. Nayak, learned counsel for the

Petitioner in the 2010 application and Mr. S. Behera,

learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in the 2006

application and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Government

Advocate appearing for the Opposite Parties in both the

// 17 //

cases. On their consent, these matters were taken up for

final disposal at the stage of admission.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after

going through the materials available on record, this Court

finds that the Petitioner of the 2010 application was

appointed vide order dated 21.08.1978 as against the

Trained Matric Post and the Petitioner of the 2006

application was appointed vide order dated 17.11.1978 also

against a Matric CT post. Both the Petitioners while so

continuing passed the B.Ed. on 16.11.1983 and

14.09.1982 respectively. Basing on the Government order

issued on 27.04.1995 though Opposite Party No.3 as found

from the record in both the cases, made recommendation in

faovur of both the Petitioners, but the Petitioner of 2010

application challenging the recommendation made by

Opposite Party No.3 on 07.12.1995 in favour of the

Petitioner of the 2006 application, approached the Tribunal

in O.A No.87(B) of 1996. While challenging the

recommendation in favour of other Petitioners, the

Petitioner of the 2010 application also prays for a direction

to extend the benefit of TGT scale w.e.f. 16.11.1983 i.e. the

date on which he acquired the B.Ed. The Tribunal while

disposing the matter vide order dtd.06.08.2000, clearly held

// 18 //

that the Petitioners of the 2010 application is not entitled to

get the benefit of TGT scale w.e.f. 16.11.1983. The said

order though was challenged before this Court in OJC

No.9980/2001 and this Court passed an interim order on

24.06.2002 by directing not to sanction TGT scale of pay in

favour of either of the Petitioners, but while disposing the

matter ultimately vide order dtd.23.03.2010, this Court did

not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. But

while disposing the matter liberty was granted to the

Petitioner of the 2010 application to work out his remedy.

In terms of the order so passed by this Court on

23.03.2010, 2010 application was filed by the deceased-

Petitioner namely Surya Narayan Panigrahi.

7.1. During pendency of the matter before this Court in

OJC NO.9980/2001 and taking into account the fact that

both the Petitioners were in the LSES cadre having holding

the post of Trained Matric CT, gradation list of LSES cadre

was published in the year 2004. In the said gradation list,

the deceased-Petitioner of the 2010 application was placed

at Sl. No.70 and the Petitioner of the 2006 application was

placed at Sl.No.74. In the eligibility list so published, the

Petitioner of the 2010 application was placed at Sl.No. 762

and other Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 864. It is found

from the record that the gradation list so published in LSES

// 19 //

cadre in the year 2004 has never been assailed by either of

the Petitioners. Not only that basing on the placement in

the said gradation list in LSES cadre, the Petitioner of the

2010 application was promoted to the rank of Junior SES

and thereby entitling him to get the benefit of TGT scale

vide order dtd.30.09.2005. Similarly, the Petitioner of the

2006 application was extended with the benefit of

promotion to Junior SES and thereby entitling him to get

the benefit of TGT scale of pay vide order dtd.13.06.2006.

Since the gradation list so published by the Department in

LSES cadre in the year 2004 with the above placement was

never assailed by either of the Petitioners and both of them

have got the benefit of promotion to Junior SES cadre vide

order dtd.30.09.2005 and 13.06.2006 and thereby making

them entitled to get the benefit of Trained Graduate Scale,

the claim made by the Petitioner to get the benefit of TGT

scale from the date of their acquiring B.Ed. qualification

with other challenges as made, as per the considered view

of this Court are not at all entertainable.

// 20 //

8. Accordingly, while holding so, this Court dismisses

both the Writ Petitions. However, there shall be no order as

to costs.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 22nd of September, 2023/Subrat (Sr. Steno)

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK