[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Petitioners vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opp. Parties on 10 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos. 33579, 33580, 33581, 33584, 33622,
33623, 33626, 33627, 33628, 33720 & 33726 of 2025
Dr. Labangalata Bisoi (WPC No.33579/2025)
Dr. Bidyut Prabha Gantayat (WPC No.33580/2025)
Dr. Puspamala Pattnaik (WPC No.33581/2025)
Radhanath Mishra (WPC No.33584/2025)
Dr. Rekha Devi (WPC No.33622/2025)
Dr. Nandita Mishra (WPC No.33623/2025)
Dr. Sudhansu Ku. Mohanty (WPC No.33626/2025)
Pranita Mohanty (WPC No.33627/2025)
Dr. Uma Chand Lal (WPC No.33628/2025)
Dr. Rama Nath Acharya (WPC No.33720/2025)
Dr. Chitra Swain (WPC No.33726/2025)
.... Petitioners
Mr. Budhadeb Routray, Sr. Advocate
with M/s S. Routray, S. Sekhar, J.
Biswal, Charvi, S. Swain & S.B.
Dash, Advocates
Versus
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Opp. Parties
Mr. J. Khandayat Ray,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
ORDER
Order No. 10.12.2025
01. All these petitions, having common factual & legal matrix,
essentially lay a challenge to the decisions of OP No.1 whereby
Petitioners' claim for their placement in Professor's Scale of Pay
under the extant Career Advancement Scheme has been negatived.
2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners
vehemently argues that in the earlier round of legal battle, i.e., in
WP(C) No. 36285 of 2021 and batch of matters between Dr.
Dhirendra Kumar Dalai & others v. State of Odisha & others, a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 27.11.2024,
had directed OP No.1 to consider the claim for the Professor's
Scale of Pay under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), 1998
keeping in view the benefit extended to similarly circumstanced
Associate Professors, vide Notification dated 30.09.2021, within a
period of three months. He further submits that such a direction
was issued after considering all the contentions of the parties and
therefore, the impugned orders, which repeat the very same
contentions of the Government that were taken up in its counter
earlier, are unsustainable. He adds that all the parameters
prescribed by the extant CAS are complied with by his clients and
therefore the impugned orders should be reversed according
benefit of Professor's pay scale on them.
3. Learned AGA appearing for the OPs vehemently opposes
the petitions making submissions in justification of the impugned
orders and the reasons on which they are constructed. He points
out that all contentions were reserved by the learned Co-ordinate
Judge while disposing of Dr. Dhirendra's case supra and therefore,
submissions of learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Petitioners
do not merit acceptance.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the
matter for the following reasons:
4.1. Petitioners were the Members of Odisha Education Service
(College Branch) Cadre and therefore, they were governed by the
provisions of Odisha Education Service (College Branch)
Recruitment Rules, 1990. These Rules did not provide for
promotion to the post of Professor at all. However, promotion to
the post of Professor was governed by the provisions of Odisha
Education Service (Professor's Grade) Recruitment Rules, 1990.
These Rules provided for promotion by selection through the
Odisha Public Service Commission from among eligible Readers,
if vacancies were available. They did not contemplate automatic
promotion under the CAS. This aspect has been in a way treated
by the impugned orders.
4.2. True it is that the benefit of CAS does not depend upon
availability of vacancies in the cadre of Professors. The UGC
Notification of 1998, whereby CAS was promulgated, was not
internalized by the State Government Resolution dated 31.12.1999
and therefore, the CAS does not operate proprio vigore. Any
financial benefit otherwise availing under the CAS, cannot be
claimed as a matter of right, unless the same has been made a part
of State Policy in terms of extant Rules that govern conditions of
service of class of employees like the Petitioners. Therefore, the
repeated contention, that for claiming benefit of CAS, vacancy in
the cadre of Professors is irrelevant, though is true, would not
enure to the benefit of Petitioners.
4.3. The Government in the impugned orders has specifically
stated that these Petitioners were superannuated long before the
promulgation of the Odisha Education Service (College Branch)
Recruitment Rules, 2020, which came into effect on 18.02.2021.
The promotions granted to 76 Associate Professors were under
these Rules and all they were in service. Those who had retired
before the promulgation of these Rules, constitute a separate class
that is not contemplated under these new Rules for the grant of
benefit of the kind. Apparently, no challenge is laid to these Rules,
either. The observation of Co-ordinate Bench at Paragraph 8.2 of
the judgment that while considering petitioners' claim, the benefit
granted to these persons should be kept in view, does not mean
petitioners should be treated on par with them, regardless of
apparent difference, i.e., the promulgation of the new Rules w.e.f.
18.02.2021 and superannuation of the Petitioners anterior to the
same. Service Jurisprudence more than recognizes the pensioners
as a class apart qua those who are still in service. Therefore, the
reasoning of the impugned orders cannot be faltered on the
grounds, such as equality & reasonableness.
4.4. The vehement reliance of learned Senior Advocate on the
Government Notification dated 31.12.1999 would not come to the
aid of his clients. Despite turning its pages, it is not demonstrated
that this Notification internalizes Paragraph 7.1.3 of the CAS,
which reads as under:
"A Reader with a minimum of eight years of service in that
grade will be eligible to be considered for appointment as a
Professor."
The text of the above provision only speaks of eligibility to be
considered for appointment as a Professor and not as to
entitlement for such appointment. Eligibility is one thing and
entitlement is another. If the CAS 1998 intended entitlement, in its
wisdom it would have employed the very same word. To put it
metaphorically, eligibility is the starting point of the journey,
whereas entitlement is the destination point.
In the above circumstances, these petitions being devoid of
merits are liable to be rejected, and accordingly they are, costs
having been made easy.
( Dixit Krishna Shripad )
Judge
Madhusmita
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
