BIJAYALAXMI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Teacher against Trained Graduate Post in Budhnath High School, Balipatna in the district of Khurda, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the communication dated 15.07.2013 under AnnexureIV, and issue direction to the opposite parties to allowing her Trained Graduate Teacher scale of pay from 13.12.1986, i.e. from the date of passing B.Ed. examination till the date she was actually promoted to the post of Junior SES during the year 2006, instead of notionally.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that as per the revised yardstick issued by the Government on 01.06.1983, an additional section post was created in Class X-C of "Sri Budhanath High School, Balipatna" in the district of Khurda. The petitioner was appointed against the additional section post. In the meantime, the Government upgraded trained intermediate post to that of trained graduate post, vide Govt. Order No. 37536/E dated 14.08.1991. The petitioner, having possessed B.Ed. qualification with effect from 13.12.1986, claimed that she should be granted trained graduate scale of pay from the date of passing of the examination, but the same was not considered. Therefore, she approached this Court by filing OJC No. 7792 of 1995, which was disposed of on 01.02.1996 with the direction to consider her representation pending with the Inspector of Schools and on examination if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the trained graduate scale of pay, as claimed by her, necessary recommendation to the Director of Secondary Education shall be made within two months and the Director of Secondary Education in his turn shall pass necessary orders thereafter within two months from the date of receipt of the recommendation. In compliance of the above order, the Inspector of Schools, by its letter dated 05.07.1996, recommended the case of the petitioner along with others to the Director, enclosing therewith the copy of the statement of the concerned teachers requesting the Director to allow them to draw trained graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 01.06.1983 or from the date of passing of their B.Ed. examination. But the Director did not take any steps and sat over the matter.

(3.) Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the authority is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to trained graduate scale of pay from the date of passing of B.Ed. examination i.e. from 13.12.1986, the same should not have been granted notionally, but should have been granted actually for the period from 13.12.1986 till 06.06.2006, as the petitioner has been receiving regular scale of pay after such date. It is further contended that from the date of acquiring B.Ed. qualification, the petitioner has been discharging the duty of trained graduate post and continuing in the additional section post in Class-X-C and, as such, the Government has allowed similarly situated 284 teachers of the trained matric/trained intermediate of ten circles and 150 teachers of 3 circles, including Khurda circle, for receiving their salary in TGT scale of pay w.e.f. 01.06.1983 or from the date of passing B.Ed. examination, whichever is applicable. It is further contended that as a matter of policy decision, the Government has extended the above benefit allowing the TGT scale of pay to so many similarly situated teachers, but the petitioner has been discriminated and, as such, it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the impugned communication does not indicate that the petitioner is not entitled to TGT scale of pay, rather having satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to get TGT scale of pay w.e.f. 13.12.1986, i.e., from the date she passed the B.Ed examination, but granted the benefit notionally, instead of actually. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in (Sri) Madhab Chandra Podh vs. State of Orissa, 1998 2 OrissaLR 334 and Jasobanta Mohanty vs. State of Orissa, 2016 2 ILR(Cut) 384.