SUJATA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA
LAWS(ORI)-2021-3-42
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on March 10,2021

SUJATA DAS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.R.SARANGI,J. - (1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dated 15.05.2012 in Annexure-7 passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar & Administrator, Vivekananda Shikshya Kendra, Unit-IV, declining to accede to the prayer of the petitioner for revision of pay as per seniority considering the date of her appointment and training.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that Vivekananda Sikshya Kendra, Unit-IV, Bhubaneswar is a recognized unaided private school. It is one of the oldest schools in Bhubaneswar town and catering the need of large number of students from various locality of Bhubaneswar. It got necessary permission and recognition from opposite parties no. 1 and 2 way back in the year 1981-82 and was engaged in imparting primary education since the session 1982-83. Subsequently, one M.E. School was established by the same management during the session 1988-89 and was upgraded to High School during the session 1990-91. 2.1 The petitioner, after completion of her training, joined as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) for the classes of High School w.e.f. 03.07.1990 and continued as such. She was accepted as an examiner of the B.S.E., Odisha vide Examiner Code No. 901051 and was performing the duty assigned to her. At the time of joining, there was no pay structure for payment of salaries to the staff. The teaching staff were getting salary as per the sweet will of the management. After long demands and protests, pay fixation of all the staff was made by the management in the year 1996. At the time of pay fixation by the management during the year 1996, lot of irregularities and discrepancies were committed by the management. Some junior staff and some primary school staff were given higher pay than others, for which some of the teaching staff raised protest. Pursuant to such lawful protest, the management with ulterior motive took illegal actions. Some teachers were terminated from services and some others, including the petitioner, were put under suspension. 2.2 Against the illegal actions of the management, two writ petitions, i.e. OJC No. 7225 of 1998 and OJC No. 10847 of 1998 were filed before this Court. In such writ petitions, this Court, having prima facie satisfied that some irregularities were committed by the management, was pleased to direct that the management of the school would vest with the Collector, Khurda or any subordinate officer of him not below the rank of Sub-Collector, and further directed the Sub- Collector to examine the complaints. In obedience to the orders passed by this Court, the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar took over the charge of the school and after examining the records passed order reinstating the staff, who were illegally prevented from discharging the duties. The dispute arose between the staff and the then management for wrong fixation of pay of some of the teachers giving higher benefits and seniority to some others having good relationship with the persons with whom management of the school was vested. Therefore, a gradation list was prepared separately for primary school staff and high school staff as well as the pay of the staff was revised as per the fifth pay commission report. Such revision was made deliberately ignoring the anomalies in the last pay fixation made in the year 1996. As per the gradation list published in the year 2008, one Jalpana Das, who joined as a primary school teacher and accommodated in the High School in the year 1995, shown as senior to the petitioner and was getting more pay than that of her entitlement. Therefore, there were lots of irregularities with such pay fixation and gradation list. Even some of the employees, those who have completed training after the petitioner and joined as junior teacher, they are getting higher scale of pay. In view of such anomalies in the gradation list and pay fixation, the petitioner represented several times to the management in-charge through headmaster of the school, but no action was taken. The representation filed by the petitioner on 07.04.2010 was also rejected on the plea of delayed claim without considering the same in proper prospective. The petitioner objected with regard to pay fixation of scale of pay w.e.f. 1996, but without considering her objection, she was suspended with an ulterior motive. Subsequently she was reinstated in service, but she has not been paid the scale of pay admissible to her post. Therefore, she approached by filing representation, but that has been now declined to accede, vide order dated 15.05.2012. Hence this application.
(3.) Mr. S. Sekhar learned counsel appearing on behalf of D. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, after acquiring B.Ed. qualification in the year 1990, was selected and joined as trained graduate teacher against trained graduate post by virtue of the appointment letter dated 03.07.1990. Subsequently, she joined in the post, but the scale of pay was fixed against Trained Graduate Post at Rs.1480/-, though the other Trained Graduate Teachers holding Trained Graduate Post were getting much higher scale than that of the petitioner. For instance, one B.K. Sahu, who acquired B.Ed qualification in the year 1995, was allowed to receive his scale of pay @ Rs.1560/- per month. Similarly, one Smt. J. Das, who acquired B.Ed, qualification on the same year, i.e. in the year 1990, was allowed to get Rs.1760/- and other teachers like Sri R.K. Swain, who acquired B.Ed. qualification in the year 1991, was allowed much higher salary i.e.,Rs.1800/- than the petitioner. Likewise, one Sri D. Ojha, who was untrained graduate, was allowed to receive his scale of pay @ Rs.1760/- and Sri S.C. Praharaj, who acquired B.Ed in the year 1994, was allowed to get scale of pay i.e. Rs.1480/- which is same as that of the petitioner, but the petitioner has been denied such benefit. Therefore, she has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.;


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