RAMA CHANDRA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Jayanta Kumar Rath, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Biplab Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dtd. 10/5/2017 passed by the Government-Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-27 and with a further prayer to extend the benefit of the sale of pay as applicable to the post of Headmaster since December, 1991. It is submitted that the Petitioner with having qualification of trained graduate was initially appointed as Headmaster in Shri Pingaleswar Vidyapith on10/11/1984 which was an unaided educational institution at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that even though the petitioner was duly appointed but when his services were terminated by the newly constituted Managing committee vide order dtd. 7/11/1986, the petitioner challenging the same approached the learned State Educational Tribunal. It is submitted that when learned Tribunal held the application as not maintainable as the institution was an unaided one, the petitioner challenging the said order of termination preferred an appeal before the Director, Secondary Education-Opp. Party No.2. It is submitted that when the said appeal was rejected by the Opp. Party No.2, the petitioner challenging the said order of termination as well as the order of Opp. Party No.2 approached this Court in OJC No.3490 of 1990. This Court vide its order dtd. 27/2/1991 under Annexure-1 held that the petitioner is to function as Headmaster of the School and directed accordingly. It is submitted that challenging the said order passed by this Court on 27/2/1991, the Managing Committee of the School when filed an application for modification of the said order, the same was rejected by this Court vide its order dtd. 25/7/1991 under Annexure-2. It is further submitted that in spite of such order when the joining report of the petitioner was not accepted by the Managing Committee, the petitioner filed Original Criminal Misc. Case No.62 of 1991 and this Court in its order dtd. 17/1/1992 awarded imprisonment of seven days to the contemnor-Secretary of the Managing Committee under Annexure-3. It is submitted that the petitioner finally vide order dtd. 11/2/1992 under Annexure-4 was allowed to function as Headmaster of the School. But it is submitted that by the time the petitioner was allowed to function as Headmaster, the school was already notified to be an aided educational institution w.e.f 5/1/1990. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner became eligible to get the Headmaster's scale of pay w.e.f December, 1991 and moved the Opp. Party No.3 in that regard. As the said benefit was not extended, the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No.6171 of 1992. This Court vide order dtd. 11/9/1992 disposed of the said Writ Petition with the following direction:

(3.) It is submitted that in the meantime, challenging the order passed by this Court on 27/2/1991 in OJC No.3490 of 1990 under Annexure-1, the Managing Committee of the School approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) No.16215 of 1991 and the said SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dtd. 14/10/1992 under Annexure-5. It is accordingly submitted that in view of such dismissal of the matter by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the order passed by this Court on 25/7/1991 under Annexure-1 attained finality. Mr. Rath, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently vide order dtd. 14/5/1993 under Annexure-6, the petitioner was allowed to draw the Headmaster's scale of pay w.e.f 10/11/1991. It is submitted that the said order under Annexure-6 was passed in terms of the order passed by this Court on 11/9/1992 under Annexure-4. Mr. Rath, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was in receipt of the Headmaster's scale of pay in terms of order issued under Annexure-6, Opp. Party No.2 vide his letter dtd. 24/7/1993 under Annexure-7 directed Opp. Party No.2 not to release the Headmaster scale of pay in respect of those who are covered as per the circular issued by the Government. It is submitted that since in the letter under Annexure-7, the name of the petitioner was reflected at Sl. No.12, the petitioner challenged the same before this Court in OJC No.7188 of 1993. It is submitted that this Court vide order dtd. 17/11/1994 under Annexure-8 quashed the direction so far as it relates to the petitioner and directed that the petitioner shall be paid Headmaster's scale of pay. Order dtd. 17/11/1994 passed in OJC No.7188 of 1993 under Annexure-8 is quoted herein below :