PRATAP CHANDRA SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as 4th Peon by the Managing Committee of Haripur High School on 13/4/1991. His appointment was approved by the Inspector of Schools, Cuttack Circle vide order dtd. 23/8/1997 and he was allowed to draw salary in the scale of pay of Rs.750.00940/-against the post of Sweeper-cum-Watchman with effect from the date the School came into the grant-in-aid fold i.e., 1/6/1994 pending allowing of Duftary Scale of Pay in favour of one of the four Class-IV employees of the School on the basis of suitability with due regard to seniority. It was however stipulated that the payment of arrear salary would be subject to provision of funds by the Government. By Resolution dtd. 25/7/2009, the Managing Committee of the School resolved to appoint one Prasanna Kumar Das, who was the senior-most Class-IV employee (peon) as Duftary. Such Resolution was approved provisionally by the Inspector of School, Cuttack vide Office Order dtd. 4/9/2009 and accordingly, the adjustment of the petitioner in the consequential vacancy of Class-IV post was also approved, inter alia, subject to condition that such adjustment shall be prospective in nature and the petitioner will be entitled to salary (GIA) only after he assumes duty in the said post.

(2.) Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R.Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

(3.) Mr. Das would argue that the petitioner's appointment as 4th peon having already been approved by the Inspector of Schools with effect from 1/6/1994, he is entitled to arrear salary as admissible with effect from the said date. The Government cannot take a contrary view subsequently as the petitioner had already rendered service in the approved post since 1/6/1994. Mr. Das further argues that as per the prevailing yardstick, the roll strength of the School justified four Class-IV employees, one of whom was to be promoted as Duftary. It was for the Management to grant promotion, which it did not. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the delay caused by the Management in this regard more so as his appointment as per the yardstick was duly approved by the competent authority.