KABITARANI BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are four in number, have filed this writ petition claiming two reliefs; (i) to declare them as the existing teaching staff of Gopinath Dev High School being the employees of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation with effect from 1.6.1994 and (ii) to direct the Bhubaneswar Municipal Authorities to release their salary, etc., with effect from the said date (1.6.1994).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioners' case is that they were appointed as Assistant Teachers against additional Sections in Classes -VIII, IX and X in Gopinath Dev High School, Rasulgarh during 1991 -1993 as per the standard staff applicable to non -government Secondary Schools. While they were continuing as such, there was a proposal for taking over the Management of the school by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (then it was, Municipality), for which, the State Government invited objections by notification dated 12.2.1993 (Extraordinary Gazette notification dated 20.2.1993) at Annexure -3 as required under Section 124 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. Since no objection was received from any quarter within the time stipulated, the Government transferred the Management of the school and vested the same with the Bhubaneswar Municipal Council as per the notification dated 3.8.1994 at Annexure -5 (Extraordinary Gazette notification dated 5.8.1994). Pursuant to the Government notification, the Chairman of the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation issued office order dated 1.5.1995 (Annexure -6) taking over the Management of the School and further declaring that all properties, existing teaching and non -teaching staff and all assets of the school shall ipso facto stand transferred to the Municipal Council and shall be deemed to have vested in it. According to the petitioners, in view of the aforesaid government notifications and the office order of the Municipal Corporation, they have become the Municipal employees and the Municipal Corporation is therefore liable to pay their remuneration and other salaries which they are entitled to.

(3.) BY referring to order dated 1.2.1996 passed by this Court in a writ petition (OJC 531 of 1996) it was contended that the school in question is an aided educational institution. The said contention is not acceptable and is hereby rejected because this Court did not examine the question whether the school was an aided educational institution. The said writ petition was disposed, of at the stage of admission basing on the averments made in the petition. It was alleged in the writ petition that although grant -in -aid had been drawn by the Inspector of Schools from the Treasury, for the reasons best known to him the salaries of the writ petitioners were not being paid. Therefore, solely on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition this Court directed release of the salaries of the writ petitioners if the grant -in -aid had been drawn from the Treasury. We again reiterate that from the said order dated 1.2.1996 it cannot be concluded/held that the school in question was an aided educational institution.