STATE OF ODISHA Vs. PURNA CHANDRA CHAND
LAWS(ORI)-2021-5-4
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on May 31,2021

State Of Odisha Appellant
VERSUS
Purna Chandra Chand Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.K.SAHOO, J. - (1.) The petitioners, who were the opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 456 of 2013 filed by the opposite party Purna Chandra Chand, have sought for review of the order dated 24.04.2013 passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the writ petition. The operative portion of the order dated 24.04.2013 is extracted herein below for ready reference:- ".....In view of the aforesaid law laid down, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the salary of Headmaster for the period, for which he has worked as in-charge Headmaster, the opposite parties are directed to calculate his entitlements at the scale of pay of Headmaster for the period, for which he has worked and as stated, he is continuing as such and to pay such salary to him deducting the amount already received by him. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order."
(2.) The factual matrix in the case at hand, is that the opposite party Purna Chandra Chand herein, as the writ petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.456 of 2013 seeking for a direction to the petitioners of this review petition to pay him the Headmaster scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1994 till the date he was holding the post of Headmaster of Madhabananda Sikshya Niketan, Mahulia (hereafter 'Sikshya Niketan') in the district of Balasore with all the consequential financial and service benefits accrued out of the same. The case of the opposite party (writ petitioner) is that in a due process of selection, he was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (CBZ) by the Managing Committee of the Sikshya Niketan vide resolution no.40 dated 20.08.1989 which was an unaided recognized educational institution and pursuant to the said resolution, the Secretary of Sikshya Niketan issued appointment letter on the very same day and accordingly, the petitioner joined the service on 21.08.1989. Due to the vacancy caused in the post of Headmaster, as per the resolution of the Managing Committee of the Sikshya Niketan, the petitioner was appointed as Headmaster of the Sikshya Niketan and joined his duty as such on 01.10.1993. While the petitioner was functioning as Headmaster, the Sikshya Niketan was notified as an aided educational institution as defined under section 3(b) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 (hereafter '1969 Act') with effect from 01.06.1994. As per the requirement of the State authorities, the Managing Committee of the Sikshya Niketan submitted the proposal for approval of the services of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Sikshya Niketan including the writ petitioner as Headmaster in order to enable them to receive their salary from the State Government as per Rule 9 of the Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter "1974 Rules"). The Inspector of Schools vide order dated 28.08.1997 approved the appointment of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Sikhya Niketan and the services of the writ petitioner was approved as Headmaster in-charge of the Sikshya Niketan against the post of Headmaster with effect from 01.10.1994 instead of 01.06.1994. In view of the mistake in the date of approval, the Sikshya Niketan brought to the notice of the Inspector of Schools for modification in the order of approval. Accordingly, the Inspector of Schools vide office order dated 17.09.1998 modified the earlier order and approved the services of the writ petitioner as the Headmaster in-charge of the Sikshya Niketan with effect from 01.06.1994, but the writ petitioner was not given the Headmaster's scale of pay, rather he was given the Trained Graduate Scale of pay. The case of the writ petitioner was that he had worked for more than eighteen years in the post of Headmaster without the scale of pay attached to the said post and he made several representations to the State authorities for grant of Headmaster's scale of pay with effect from 01.06.1994, but the same yielded no result.
(3.) At the time of admission of the writ petition, notice was issued to the petitioners of this review petition on 21.02.2013 and the learned counsel for School and Mass Education Department (S&ME) entered appearance for them and accepted notice. Three extra copies of writ petitions were directed to be served on him and he was directed to obtain necessary instruction in the matter. The matter was next listed on 19.03.2013 on which date, the learned counsel for S&ME sought for time to file counter affidavit and accordingly, two weeks time was granted as last chance to file the counter affidavit. The matter came up next on 24.04.2013, but no counter affidavit was filed and accordingly, the case was disposed of on that day passing the order under review. From the order, it is not clear whether the learned counsel for S&ME was present on that day or not. Factual details have not been noted in the order, however, it is mentioned that the service of the petitioner as in-charge Headmaster was approved from 01.06.1994 but he was not paid salary of the Headmaster and was continuing in the salary of a trained graduate teacher. The learned Division Bench relying upon the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Selva Raj -Vrs.- Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair and others, 1999 AIR(SC) 838 and of this Court in the case of Dillip Kumar Sahoo and others -Vrs.- State of Odisha and others, 2008 1 OrissaLR 162 allowed the writ petition vide order dated 24.04.2013, operative portion of which has been extracted in Para 1 in directing the State authorities, the petitioners herein, to calculate the entitlements of the writ petitioner at the scale of pay of Headmaster for the period for which he had worked as Headmaster in-charge and was also continuing as such and to pay such salary to him deducting the amount already received by him, with a further direction to complete the entire exercise within a period of three months from the date of communication of the said order.;


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