R.K.PATRA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition was allowed by order dated 19.4.1995 passed by a Division Bench of this Court declaring that the petitioner is entitled to draw I.A. (Intermediate in Arts) C.P. Ed. scale of pay with effect from 2.9.1986, the date of acquisition of training qualification, i.e. C.P. Ed. The State Government being aggrieved by the said order as well as similar orders passed in other connected cases, preferred Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court which set aside this Court's orders and remitted the matters for fresh disposal by order dated 21.4.1997. This is how this matter and other connected matters have come up for hearing before us.
(2.) WE have heard counsel for parties. Since points involved in this matter and other connected matters are one and the same, they were heard together and are governed by this judgment. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he is a Physical Education Teacher in Dadhibamanjew Bidyapitha which was an aided educational institution (now taken over by the State Government). On being appointed as a Physical Education Teacher (hereinafter referred to as 'P.E.T.) in the said High School, he joined the post on 9.4.1975. At that time, he was an Intermediate in Arts (I.A.). On 2.9.1986 he passed C.P. Ed. i.e. the Certificate from the College of Physical Education (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P. Ed.') which is the qualification required for a P.E.T. On acquiring the aforesaid training qualification, he laid claim before the Inspector of Schools for grant of I.A. C.P. Ed. scale. The claim was rejected by the Inspector of Schools in his office letter No. 4222 dated 25.4.1988 (Annexure G/3) on the ground that he had not acquired the C.P. Ed. qualification prior to the cut off date (1.4.1981). We may extract the order hereunder : 'Since the validation date for allowing I.A.C.P. Ed. scale is 1.4.1981, Sri N. Nayak, P.E.T. of your school has qualified I.A.C.P. Ed. after the validate period. The question of allowing higher scale (I.A.C.P. Ed.) does not arise.' The correctness of the said order is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
(3.) BEFORE examining the contentions raised, we may profitably extract hereunder the order of the Supreme Court dated 21.4. 1997 remanding the matter to this Court for fresh disposal : 'Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Orissa High Court, made on April 19, 1995 in O.J.C. No. 1 196 of 1994 and batch. The Government has prescribed April 1. 1981 as the cut off date for acquisition of the qualification and those who have acquired the qualifications prior to that date are entitled to the additional amounts as prescribed under the Rules. The High Court has allowed the writ petitions without reference to the relevant Rules. It is settled law that the cut off date has to be valid and bears reasonable relationship to the object sought to be achieved. It is stated that the teachers are relying upon Rule 9 of the 1974 Rules. We are informed that several writ petitions are pending in the High Court on the basis of Rule 9. In that view of this matter, it may be desirable that all these matters be decided by the High Court. Taking an over all view of all the facts, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The High Court is at liberty to consider the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the respondents states that orders were implemented subject to the result of the appeals. Implementation of the order does not stand on the way of the High Court to have the matters examined. No costs.' ;