SURENDRANATH SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three petitioners, who are working as Lecturers in Laxmi Barah College, Ayatpur have prayed for a direction to opp. parties 1 and 2 to release the salary components of the petitioners with effect from October, 1991 as sanctioned by the State Government vide Annexure - 2 and for payment of U.G.C. scales of pay, which is being paid to their counter -parts in the Government establishment. It is further prayed that opp. party No.3 be directed to pay the petitioners the balance of the dues paid by the State Government within a stipulated period.

(2.) THE petitioners case in short is that petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Lecturer against the first post of Political Science and on being so appointed he joined the post on 12.7.1981. The petitioner No.2 was appointed as Lecturer in the first post of Lecturer in Oriya and he joiend the post in 10.7.1981 The petitioner No.3 joined as a Lecturer in the first post of Economics on 1.9.1982 in Laxmi Barah College, Ayatpur. The College where the petitioners are serving got recognition in June. 1983 as Intermediate College and as per the grant -in -aid principles of the State Government, it became eligible to receive grant -in -aid, at l/3rd after 5 years, 2/3rd after 7 years and full salary cost 9 years after the recognition and as such, the college was eligible to receive l/3rd from 1.6.88, 2/3rd from 1.6.90 and full salary cost from 1.6.1992. The petitioners appointments were duly approved by opp. party No.2 vide order No. 24066 dated 9.4.1991, a copy whereof is Annexure -2 to the writ application. Pursuant to the order in Annexure -2, the payment was released but the petitioners claim that they being employees of the aided institution, under Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, they are entitled to receive the salary components at the same rates as paid to the counterparts in Government Colleges and as such, the balance of the salary components i.e. 2/3rd salary cost was to be paid by the opp. party No.3. It is the petitioners' case that they are paid salary by opp. party No.2 till January, 1989 and thereafter no payment was made to the petitioners either by opp. parties 1 and 2 or by opp. party No.3. The petitioners are entitled to get salary components from opp. party. No.3 at the rate of 2/3rd from 1.6.1988 to 31.5.1990, l/3rd from 1.6.1990 to 31.5.1992 since they are entitled to receive 2/3rd salary component from the State Government and l/3rd salary components from opp. party No.3 and full salary from 1.6.1992. Opp. parties are not paying any heed to the request for payment of such legitimate dues.

(3.) OPP . party No.2, the Director, Higher Education and opp. party No. 3 the Principal -cum -Secretary of the College have filed separate counter affidavits denying the claims of the petitioners. The Director, Higher Education, opp. party No.2, in his counter has submitted that the salary bills of the petitioners have not yet been furnished by the College inasmuch as the petitioners are not eligible to receive U.G.C. scales of pay since the petitioners College is not a Degree College in terms of the Govt. Circular. It is further stated that the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules for Non Government Aided institution was issued by the Education Department vide Resolution No.48287/EYS. dated 6.11.1990. The aforesaid Rule contemplates that only the teachers of different aided non -Government Colleges having requisite qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission and modified by the State Government from time to time are eligible to get the revised scales of pay. The further stipulation as per the Resolution is that the College in question must have obtained Government concurrence and University affiliation for opening of +3 Degree course by 1.4.1989 in order to qualify its lecturers for getting the revised scales of pay. In other words, the lecturers serving in an aided college having full facilities up to the +3 Degree classes by 1.4.1989 are eligible for the U.G.C. scales of pay. It is stated that since the petitioners college has provision for teaching up to +2 stage and there is no Degree classes, the petitioners are not eligible to get the U.G.C. scales of pay and therefore, there is no discrimination shown to the petitioners, a copy of the Government Resolution dated 6.11.1990 has been annexed as Annexure -A/ 2. It is therefore, the stand of opp. party No. 2 that the petitioners being lecturers of a College having teaching facilities up to +2 stage and not +3 Degree stage are not entitled to the U.G.C. scale of pay. Opp. party No.3, the Principal -cum -Secretary of the Governing Body in his counter has denied the allegation regarding non -payment of 2/3rd salary cost from 1.6.1988 to 3.5.1990 and the full salary cost. It is stated that the petitioners are allowed to draw a consolidated pay of Rs. 400/ - per month as per the Resolution of the Governing Body dated 30.7.90 and the petitioners received their salary amounting to Rs.18,180/ - each, whereas they are entitled to receive only Rs. 9,600/ - each at the consolidated pay of Rs. 400/ - per month. It is further stated that the teachers were also paid Rs. 7,200/ - each at the consolidated rate of Rs. 300/ - per month -as per the Resolution of the Governing Body dated 20.2.1991 and the petitioners 1 and 2 have received Rs. l,500/ - and petitioner No.3 received Rs. 750/ - on a rough Acquittance Roll due to non -availability of the original Acquittance Roll. But after the original Acquittance Roll was available, when the petitioners were requested to sign on the said, they refused to do so on the ground that they have already signed on the rough Acquittance Roll.