PATRAS SORENG Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had joined Hamirpur High School as a Physical Education Teacher in 1955 by force of the letter of appointment dated June 22, 1955 as at Annexure 1. After joining the school, he went for training and on completion of the same he was accepted as a trained Physical Education Teacher with effect from July 1, 1953 to be confirmed in that post with effect from Septembers, 1964. He served the school till the age of superannuation, which was 60 years, which date fell on October 19, 1990, and so, came to retire with effect from October 31, 1990. He prayed for grant of retirement benefits like pension and gratuity but the same not having been paid, the present application has been filed.

(2.) BEFORE we proceed to examine Ihe merit of the case of the petitioner relating to his entitlement to the aforesaid retirement benefits, it may be stated that Hamirpur High School is a minority institution havingbcen established by Christian Minority, Githolic Diocese of Sambalpur/ Bcndargarh. Even so, it is an Aided Institution and fully aided at that, as staled in paragraph 2 of the petition, which averment has been replied in the counter affidavit filed by the Stale and the Inspector of Schools (opp. parties 1 and 2) by slating in paragraph 3 that the school is an aided school but not one coming under "direct pay-mentsystem". As to what is the relevance of this, we shall advert later.

(3.) EMPLOYEES of Aided Educational Institutions are entitled to retirement benefits as provided in the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions'employees' Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 (hereinafter 'the Rules' ). Rule 3 of the Rules, however, states that the same shall apply, inter alia, to the teaching staff, as was the petitioner, of such schools which come under the "directpaymentsystem". The proviso to that rule permits the Government to apply the Rules to any other educational institution or category of institutions as may be specified by general or special order. It is the requirement of the school to be under the "direct payment system" which has stood in the way of the petitioner in getting the benefit under the Rules inasmuch as the case of opp. parties 1 and 2, as already noted, is that the school in question does not come under the direct payment system. It is because of this that the vires of Rule 3 have been assailed in this petition, inter alia, on the ground that it is discriminatory. As, however, we are satisfied that despite what has been stated in rule the petitioner is entitled to the benefits under the Rules, we are not addressing ourselves on the question of validity of Rule 3 on the ground that it is discriminatory.