BRUNDABAN PADHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEADMASTER of an aided educational institution is petitioner in this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for getting pay in the revised scale with periodical increments and Dearness Allowance and Additional Dearness Allowance as admissible on it for the period between 1st January, 1974 and 30th June, 1982 when he retired as Headmaster.

(2.) PETITIONER was Headmaster of a Government High School. He retired on superannuation on 28 -12 -1969 on attaining the age of 55 years. After retirement he was appointed as Headmaster in Biswanath High School, an aided educational institution on 1 -4 -1970. While petitioner was continuing as Headmaster of the Aided High School, State Government o issued an executive instruction in G. O. No. 5361 /E, dated 21 -2 -1973 where under pay scales of teachers of aided non -Government schools and colleges were equalised with those of their counter -parts in similar Government educational institutions with effect from 1 -4 -1972. Accordingly, petitioner was allowed pay in the scale of pay of Rs. 250/ - 425/ - with effect from 1 -4 -1972, Although the school in which petitioner came under direct payment scheme with effect from 1 -3 -1974 and the pay scale of similar Government teachers was revised petitioner got his pay in the minimum of the scale. There was again revision of pay scale with effect from 1 -1 -1981 and petitioner was not given benefit of the same. In this background as per CO. No. 13233/EY3 dated 3 -4 -1982, petitioner left his employment on 30 -6 -1982. Six years after, petitioner has filed this application for the benefits due during his employment in the aided educational institution.

(3.) MR . G.A.R. Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the same principle, petitioner is entitled to increments in the scales of pay. Increments are of two categories. They are normal increments and those permitted after crossing efficiency bar after considering the efficiency. It is difficult to find out the efficiency after ten years of leaving the employment. Besides, efficiency since after 1974 of different periods are to be considered. Those in the Managing Committees would not be available to sit together and decide the question. In that view, we are not inclined to permit the petitioner to get his increments by crossing the efficiency bar. Normal annual increments which are part of the scale of pay, however, would be available to petitioner. Thus, the salary on 1 -1 -1974 paid to petitioner shall be considered and it shall be treated that he opted for the revised scale of pay. On that basis his pay shall be determined from 1 -1 -1974 to 1 -1 -1982. In case, there would be any efficiency bar in between, pay of petitioner till the remaining period shall remain arrested at that stage. On the pay as determined, petitioner shall be paid the admissible D.A. and A.D.A. Deducting the amounts already paid, petitioner shall be paid the balance. On the basis of pay as determined in 1974 revised scale, pay of petitioner in the year 1981 revised scale shall be fixed and he would be entitled to increment, D.A. and A.D.A. in the aforesaid principle.