RAJKISHORE SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claiming to be a Green Card holder has prayed for two advance increments with effect from the date he is entitled to such benefit.

(2.) IT has been alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner is a teacher of Goutami High School, an aided educational institution within the definition of Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Teachers and Members of Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) "Rules, 1974. It is however, alleged that on 17 -10 -1986 the wife of the petitioner adopted the terminal method of contraception (Tubectomy) by which time the petitioner had two sons only to avoid further conception. She was granted a Green -Card for the adoption. A copy of the Green Card has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure 1. By virtue of a resolution of the Government dated 12 -10 -1983, copy of which was forwarded to all Departments on 19 -10 -1983, the Government of Orissa assured certain advantages and incentives to the Green Card holders. In the said Resolution it was stated that one would be given a Green Card if either of the parents in the age group of 1.5 -48 years having two children or less would go for terminal methods i. e. tubectomy/ vasectomy, Since the petitioner's wife has adopted terminal method of contraception (Tubectomy), the petitioner claims to be entitled to the benefits assured to the Green Card holders thereunder. Out of the facilities assured to a Green Card holder, the petitioner in this case claims two advance increments on the basis that he is a teacher in the aided school and he is entitled to the same benefits to which his counter part in Government service is entitled to. Opp. party No. 3 i.e. The Inspector of Schools has alone filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been contended that the Government Resolution giving benefits to a Green Card holder to Government Servants cannot be extended to the teachers of the aided educational institution in the absence of any specific Government order in this regard.

(3.) SO far as the first point is concerned, it has been urged on ' behalf of the petitioner that R.9 of the 1974 R.provides that every employee of an Aided Educational Institution shall draw the same pay, dearness allowance and subsistence allowance in case of suspension as is admissible to his counterpart in the Government educational institutions under the relevant rules applicable to him. The word "pay" is generally understood as "money given for the service rendered' which is synonymous to the word "salary" and/or "wages". In other words, it would mean 'the return a person receives for services rendered by him.' Identical questions came up for consideration in O. J. C. No 2848 of 1990 in which a Bench of this Court observed that the word "pay" in R.9 of the 1974 Rules, should not be given a restricted meaning and that it should be understood in a broader sense. R.9 in clear language has conferred on the teachers serving in aided educational institutions the benefit to receive the same pay as a teacher serving in Government educational institution. In the aforesaid case it was held that the same principle should apply to a teacher in an aided institution, as a consequence of which he would be entitled to the same benefit which his counter -part in Government service would get. In this connection it was further observed that increment is a constituent of pay as it merges in the pay after it becomes due. It was further held by their Lordships that the principle of equality being the purpose of R.9 of the 1974 Rules, there is no justification as to why a teacher serving in an aided educational institution possessing a Green Card should receive less pay than his counter -part holding a Green Card and serving under the Government. Absence of specific Government order in this behalf was held to be unnecessary in view of the provisions contained in R.9 of the 1974 Rules. The same rule was followed by another Bench decision of this Court in O. J. C. No. 3752 of 1991 decided on 22 -8 -1991. In both the aforesaid cases, the petitioners were conferred the benefit of two advance increments from the due date.