BHARATI DAS Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
LAWS(ORI)-2020-1-20
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on January 03,2020

BHARATI DAS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.R. Sarangi, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who was initially appointed as a teacher and now designated as Special Educator, by way of this application, seeks direction to opposite party no.1 to grant regular pay scale w.e.f. 24.02.1994, as per the Government resolution dated 24.02.1994 in Annexure2, by quashing the decision of opposite party no.1 dated 04.10.2008 in Annexure-8 allowing regular pay scale with effect from 01.07.2008.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that "School for Mentally Retarded, Balasore" was established in the year 1982 by the Handicapped Welfare Institute, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner was initially appointed as a teacher and subsequently designated as special educator from 07.12.1984 by the erstwhile management of the school for mentally retarded with a consolidated salary of Rs.500/- per month. The school in question was recognized by opposite party no.1 and has been receiving the grant-inaid from the Government since 1986-89. Consequentially, vide resolution dated 31.12.1985, the State Government formulated a set of rules for the institutions imparting education to blind, deaf and mentally retarded children. But the said rule did not have any provision for recruitment of teachers or their scale of pay. The State Government, vide resolution dated 28.12.1987, amended 1985 Rules incorporating provisions for engagement and salaries of teaches, but the same was not implemented. 2.1 Consequentially, vide resolution dated 24.02.1994 in Annexure-2, the State Government formulated a separate set of rules laying down the norms for fixation of yardsticks for teaching and non-teaching staff of the schools for mentally retarded children. As per the said rules, a special educator was entitled to a scale of pay of Rs.1400-2600/-. As the scale of pay prescribed for special educators was not allowed to the staff of the school, the petitioner filed OJC No. 2310 of 1996 with a prayer to allow her the prescribed scale of pay w.e.f. 01.04.1994. Two other special educators of the school also filed similar writ petitions. This Court, vide order dated 18.08.1999, disposed of the three writ petitions directing the opposite party no.1-State Government to consider the proposal of the management of the school for fixing pay scale, which, as per the management, had already been submitted. After the order was passed by this Court on 18.08.1999, the opposite party no.1, vide letter dated 29.11.1999 in Annexure-3, directed opposite party no.4- society to resubmit proposal with proceedings and recommendations of the selection committee. On 30.07.2003 in Annexure-4, the opposite party no.1 wrote to opposite party no.4 to furnish certain documents for consideration of the proposals. On 24.09.2003 vide Annexure-5, the opposite party no.1 wrote to opposite party no.4 to furnish a fresh selection committee report recommending the petitioner and other two special educators, who were unable to receive salary, and consequentially issued reminder on 09.01.2004 under Annexure-6. Accordingly on 21.01.2004, the opposite party no.4 sent the proceedings of the selection committee dated 21.01.2004 with specific recommendation. Pursuant thereto, on 04.10.2008, the opposite party no.1 issued letter to opposite party no.4 intimating the approval of regular pay scale inter alia in respect of petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2008 and the grant-in-aid in the approved pay scale was released in favour of the petitioner on 28.02.2009. The petitioner, on 17.04.2009, submitted a representation to opposite party no.1 pointing out that she was entitled to regular scale of pay w.e.f. 24.02.1994, as per the yard stick prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 24.02.1994, and not from 01.07.2008, and prayed for consideration of her case. The same having not been acceded to, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this application.
(3.) Mr. Bikram Prasad Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. 24.02.1994 is based on the government resolution dated 24.02.1994 in Annexure-2, but the petitioner has been extended such benefit w.e.f. 01.07.2008, without taking into account the government resolution referred to above. If the resolution dated 24.02.1994 is taken into consideration, the petitioner will be eligible to receive the benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. 24.02.1994, instead of 01.07.2008.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.