STATE OF ODISHA Vs. DASARATHI SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State under Sec. 24-C of the Orissa Education Act challenging the judgment dtd.31/5/2008 so passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') in G.I.A Case No.6 of 2005. Vide the said judgment the Tribunal while allowing the claim of the private Respondent No.1 held him eligible and entitled to get the benefit of UGC Scale of pay w.e.f. 1/1/1986 and the order passed in that regard by Appellant No.1 on 6/8/2005 rejecting such claim was set aside. The Tribunal also held Respondent No.1 entitled to get the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay w.e.f. 1/1/1986.

(2.) It is the case of the Appellants that private Respondent No.1 was initially appointed as a Lecturer in English by the Governing Body of Mangala Mohavidyalaya, Kakatpur in the district of Puri vide order dtd.20/3/1980. Pursuant to the said order, Respondent No.1 joined as such on 22/3/1980.

(3.) Dr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 on the other hand made his submission basing on the materials available on record. At the outset, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 contended that the judgment in question so passed by the Tribunal on 31. 05.2008 though is under challenge in the present appeal, but delay in filing the appeal was only condoned vide order dtd.17/5/2023 in Misc. Case No.823/2009. In absence of any interim order staying the operation of the judgment, the appellants only on the ground of pendency of the appeal, did not implement the decision of the Tribunal. However, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 contended that Respondent No.1 was selected and appointed as a Lecturer in English by the Governing Body of Mangala Mohavidyalaya, Kakatpur vide order dtd.20/3/1980 and Respondent No.1 joined in the said post on 22/3/1980. Even though Respondent No.1 had not the required percentage of mark in M.A in English i.e. 55%, but the deficiency in his qualification was not only condoned by Utkal University but also by the appellants. While condoning such deficiency, the appointment of Respondent No.1 was approved vide order dtd.27/1/1992 and the Respondent No.1 was allowed 1/3rd grant w.e.f. 1/6/1988.