SUVENDU MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Filing the writ application the petitioner sought for a direction from this Court to the O.Ps. to fix the salary of the petitioner in terms of pay revision made by the State Government from time to time and further following the norms fixed by the U.G.C. as well as the U.G.C. Pay Revision made in the year 1986 with further direction to fix the pay of the petitioner in the Senior Lecturers Scale and further directing the O.Ps. to pay the petitioner his salary regularly in terms of Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, 1974 and also to release all arrears accrues to him within a stipulated period of time.

(2.) Factual background in the case is that Mahima Mahavidyalaya, Mahimagadi, Joranda is a recognized Aided Education Institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in English by O.P.3 by virtue of appointment order dated 24.7.1978. Both the O.P.3 and the petitioner are governed by the provisions of the Orissa Education Act. It appears, while the petitioner was so continuing with the O.P.3, his services were terminated by the orders of the Governing Body bearing order no.20 dated 23.3.1980 on the plea that the petitioner was not having required mark of 54% as required to maintain such post. The petitioner claimed that the advertisement, pursuant to which the petitioner was appointed, published in the daily "The Samaj" dated 11.7.78 seeking applications from the intending candidates securing 48% of marks for the post advertised therein including the post of Lecturer in English, in which the petitioner has been appointed.

(3.) Sri J.K.Rath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in justifying the claim of the petitioner on reiteration of the facts narrated herein above and taking cue from the resolution of the Government of Orissa dated 6th October, 1989 as well as the provision contained in Rule-9 of the 1974 Rules submitted that the petitioner for meeting the educational qualification requirement in terms of the advertisement involved in his recruitment is at the minimum entitled to the benefits granted under the resolution of the State Government in the Education and Youth Service Department dated 6th October, 1989 and non-payment of the revised scale of pay fitted against the post of Lecturer therein is illegal. Taking this Court to the maintenance of service records involving the petitioner, the information available at Page-58 involving the service records, Sri Rath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's pay having been re-fixed at Rs.700/- with scale of pay band at Rs.700-40-1110-50-1300-ASS-50-1600 with effect from 7th August, 1978, as clearly appearing at page58 of the brief, for the prescription of the existing scale of pay vis-'-vis revised scale of pay appearing at page-73 of the brief, Sri Rath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner justified the petitioner's claim at the minimum at Rs.2200-75-2800-100- 4000 with effect from 1st January, 1986. Sri Rath further submitted that following the further revision of the scale for the introduction of subsequent revision of pay scale of teachers in the colleges in the meantime and the promotion given to the petitioner in the meantime, the petitioner is also entitled to the subsequent revision in the scale of pay involving the lecturers. It is under the circumstance, Sri Rath submitted that the petitioner has a justified case and this Court in consideration of the above should allow the writ application with specific direction for grant of relief as prayed for within a stipulated period of time. Sri Rath taking this Court to the pleadings available in the Misc. Case No.5283/89 being moved by O.P.3 to prevent the petitioner from his such claims on account of his not having the minimum 54% of marks to hold such post and this Court in disposal of the Misc. Case having rejected such plea of the Managing Committee, Sri Rath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner hence submitted that the O.Ps. are estopped from disentitling the petitioner from the claim made herein on the premises of the petitioner for not having minimum qualified marks of 54%.