Orissa High Court
Pitabas Bhata vs State Of Odisha Represented Through Its ... on 25 July, 2017
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.6398 of 2014
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.
-------
Pitabas Bhata ......... Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha, represented through
its Secretary, School and Mass
Education Department and others ......... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s.K.K.Swain, P.N.Mohanty, B.Jena and
P.K.Mohapatra
For Opp. Parties : Addl. Standing Counsel (S & M.E.)
(For O.Ps.1 to 3)
Mr.S.K.Nayak-3
(For O.P.4)
.........
PRESENT:
THE HON'LE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing:29.06.2017 Date of judgment:25.07.2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. D.P.Choudhury, J. Challenge has been made to the inaction of the
opposite parties for not sanctioning the arrear salary of the petitioner
from 17.04.2007 till the date of filing of the writ petition as well as his
current salary.
2. FACTS
The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioner is
that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher on 01.08.1992 against a
Trained Graduate Post in P.C.M by the Managing Committee of B.K.Girls‟
High School, Bagalgarh in the district of Cuttack and the said school got
-2-
grant-in-aid with effect from 01.03.1985. After being appointed in 1992,
the petitioner acquired B.Ed qualification on 18.11.1999. Thereafter, the
post of the petitioner was approved by the Inspector of Schools.
3. Be it stated that, since the petitioner was not paid his arrear
salary for the month of untrained period, he was compelled to file a writ
petition being O.J.C. No.14595 of 1997 before this Court and this Court,
after hearing the same, disposed of the same on 04.11.1997 with a
direction to the Inspector of Schools to take a decision in the matter
looking into the grievance of the petitioner keeping in view of the
decision of this Court rendered in the case of Bibekananda Das -V-
State of Orissa and others; 1997 (II) OLR 122. Thereafter, the
State Government, vide order dated 17.04.2007, directed the Director,
Secondary Education, Orissa to terminate the services of the petitioner
with immediate effect. Against such termination, the petitioner filed
Appeal Case No.13 of 2007 before the State Education Tribunal
(hereinafter called "the Tribunal") under Section 10-A of the Orissa
Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter called "the Act, 1969). The Tribunal,
vide its order dated 07.05.2007, stayed the termination order dated
17.04.2007passed by the Government and the petitioner continued to serve as a Science Trained Graduate Teacher in the school in question. When the salary of the petitioner was not paid, he filed W.P.(C) No.16521 of 2008 and vide order dated 12.11.2008, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to disburse the salary. As the said order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.16521 of 2008 was not -3- complied, the petitioner filed CONTC No.610 of 2009 and during pendency of that CONTC, the State Government sanctioned the salary of the petitioner for the period from 14.12.2000 to 31.05.2001 and 14.12.2003 to 17.04.2007 vide order dated 15.02.2010.
4. On 12.03.2010, the Tribunal disposed of Appeal Case No.13 of 2007 directing the opposite party no.1 to allow the petitioner to continue in his post with the remuneration till a regular substitute is available. In spite of the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner was not paid the salary from 17.04.2007 for which he filed W.P.(C) No.6568 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court on 24.07.2012 directing the opposite party no.3 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks. Since the said order was not complied, the petitioner filed another contempt petition, i.e., CONTC No.810 of 2013 wherein the opposite parties filed show cause affidavit stating that the opposite party has already filed W.P.(C) No.21931 of 2012 challenging the judgment passed by the Tribunal in Appeal Case No.13 of 2007. That apart, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure-7) by the opposite parties. But, the petitioner challenges the order dated 31.12.2012 rejecting his claim vide Annexure-7 with a prayer to quash the same and for a direction to pay the arrear salary under revised scale with effect from 18.11.1999 to 31.12.2005 and differential arrears for the period from 01.01.2006 to 17.04.2007 and onwards with current salary.
-4-
5. Per contra, the District Education Officer, Cuttack, opposite party no.3 filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made in the writ petition. It is the case of the opposite party that the petitioner, while continuing as a Trained Graduate Teacher, the then Inspector of Schools, approved his appointment on 16.11.2000 on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till closure of the School for summer vacation, whichever is earlier. But the petitioner continued thereafter illegally. The petitioner filed O.J.C. No.15763 of 1998 claiming untrained graduate scale of pay with effect from 01.08.1992 and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to consider the claim of the petitioner for release of untrained graduate scale of pay with effect from 01.08.1992. While the opposite party was considering to implement the order of this Court, it came to know that the appointment of the petitioner was made in violation of Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of the Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called "the Rules, 1974") and the Government Circular dated 05.01.1991, 06.05.1988 and 02.02.2000. Accordingly, the Government, vide letter dated 17.04.2007 directed for termination of services of the petitioner and further directed to furnish the bills for the period the petitioner performed his duty in the school from 18.11.1999 till the date of termination excluding the period against which payment has already been made. It is also the case of the opposite party that the opposite -5- party took action against the Inspector of Schools, who has approved the appointment of the petitioner.
6. It is the case of the opposite party that the order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the State by filing W.P.(C) No.21931 of 2012 and in the said writ petition, notice has been issued. The said writ petition was filed by the State on the ground that Sub-Rule-8 of Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 and the decision of this Court rendered in the case of State of Orissa and others -V- Nabin Kumar Beura; 2011 (I) OLR 149 having been not followed, the appointment of the petitioner was per se illegal. As the order of the Tribunal has been challenged in this Court by questioning the appointment of the petitioner, his entitlement for the current and arrear salary being dependent upon such result of the writ petition, the same should not be allowed at present.
7. The petitioner filed a rejoinder stating that he was appointed on ad hoc basis as no Selection Board candidate was sent to school, the petitioner continued against the said post on ad hoc basis although he acquired the B.Ed qualification on 18.11.1999. As he was not paid the salary till he acquires the B.Ed qualification, he has to file O.J.C. No.14559 of 1997, which was disposed of keeping in view the decisions rendered in the case of Bibekananda Das (Supra). But the authorities did not comply the order of this Court and on the other hand, terminated the services of the petitioner on 17.04.2017. The petitioner challenges the same stating that his appointment on ad hoc basis has been duly approved by the Inspector of Schools vide orders dated -6- 16.11.2000 and 19.12.2003. In the rejoinder, it has also been stated that as the Tribunal has stayed the order of the State Government dated 17.04.2007 by an interim measure, the petitioner had to continue as Trained Graduate Teacher in the school. As long as the order of the Tribunal has not been stayed by this Court and the petitioner has been discharging his duty regularly, as evident from the experience certificate granted by the Headmaster of the School, the petitioner is entitled to the salary from 17.04.2007. The decision of this Court rendered in State of Orissa and others (Supra) is not applicable to this case because that was a case of Additional Section Teacher whereas the case of the present petitioner was an appointment on ad hoc basis till he is replaced by the Selection Board Candidate. Moreover, it is stated that when large number of ad hoc teachers have been appointed like that of the petitioner and allowed to continue in service and get their salary regularly, the petitioner has been discriminated by the opposite parties in spite of his rendering 24 years of uninterrupted service in the capacity of ad hoc teacher.
8. The opposite party no.3 filed an additional counter affidavit stating that the order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the State in W.P.(C) No.21931 of 2012 and since the appointment of the petitioner as Trained Graduate Science Teacher has been challenged in the Tribunal and also in this Court, the question of payment of arrear salary is dependant on the outcome of the writ petition. In the additional -7- counter affidavit, the opposite party no.2 has reiterated the same facts as stated in the counter affidavit.
9. SUBMISSIONS Mr.Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been worked as a Untrained Teacher from 1992 and then continued as Trained Graduate Teacher from 1999. Since he was not paid his salary, he had to file O.J.C. No.14595 of 1997 and the same was disposed of in the light of the case of Bibekananda Das (Supra). Since the petitioner was not paid salary but was terminated from service on 17.04.2007, he took shelter of the Tribunal and the Tribunal passed an interim order staying the order of termination for which the question of discontinuance of the petitioner does not arise.
10. Mr.Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner has already approached this Court again in W.P.(C) No.16521 of 2008, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2008 directing disbursement of the salary of the petitioner and the State Government also sanctioned the salary of the petitioner for the period from 14.12.2000 to 31.05.2001 and 14.12.2003 to 17.04.2007 vide order dated 15.2.2010. When the salary of the petitioner from 17.04.2007 onwards and his arrear salary was not paid, he again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.6568 of 2012 and vide order dated 24.07.2012, this Court disposed of that writ petition with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioner for payment of revised salary, differential arrear salary and current salary. The -8- opposite party cannot deny to pay the same on the ground that they have preferred a writ petition against the order of the Tribunal. According to him, as long as the order of the Tribunal neither has been stayed nor has been set aside, petitioner is entitled to all the benefits of a regular teacher when he is continuing as a Trained Graduate Teacher in the school in question till a regular appointment is made.
11. Learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department submitted that they have paid the current salary up to 28.02.2017 from 27.10.2016 as per order of this Court dated 27.10.2016 and the services of the petitioner has been discontinued. According to him, the petitioner is not entitled to arrears unless the writ petition filed against the order of the Tribunal is disposed of as the appointment of the petitioner is under challenge.
12. POINT FOR DETERMINATION The main point for determination is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to arrear salary, if any?
13. DISCUSSIONS It is admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis on 01.08.1992 in the school in question as a Science Graduate Teacher and the said school had got grant-in-aid with effect from 01.03.1985. It is not in dispute that the petitioner acquired B.Ed qualification on 18.11.1999 and he filed O.J.C No.14595 of 1997 for payment of his monthly salary for the untrained period, which was disposed of with a direction to the Inspector of Schools to look into the grievance of the petitioner keeping in view the decision of this Court in -9- the case of Bibekananda Das (Supra). It is also admitted fact that the petitioner has challenged the order of his termination dated 17.04.2007 by filing Appeal Case No.13 of 2007 before the Tribunal and by the interim order of the Tribunal, the order of termination was stayed. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal passed final order setting aside the order of termination and allowed the petitioner to continue in the school till a regular substitute is available to the school.
14. It is available from the pleadings of the parties that the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Inspector of Schools vide Annexure-3 series and said Inspector of Schools was departmentally proceeded for approving the same as against the provisions of Rules, 1974. Even if the Inspector of Schools is proceeded departmentally but the fact remains that appointment of the petitioner has been approved on ad hoc basis for a period of six months. The order passed in O.J.C. No.14595 of 1997 on 04.11.1997 is as follows:
"04.11.1997 Heard.
It is stated that the petitioner‟s case is covered by the ratio of decision of this Court in Bibekananda Das v. State of Orissa and others, 1997 (II) OLR
122. Let the Inspector of Schools, Cuttack Education Circle (opp. Party no.3) take a decision in the matter looking into grievance of petitioner keeping in view the aforesaid decision and its applicability to the facts of the petitioner‟s case within four months from the date of receipt of our orders.
The writ application is disposed of accordingly."
The aforesaid order has been passed by this Court keeping in view the ratio decided in the case of Bibekananda Das (Supra). In
- 10 -
the rejoinder, it has been made clear that the petitioner, being a recruitee prior to 1993, is entitled to get the benefit in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Bibekananda Das (Supra).
15. This Court, at paragraph-11 of the judgement in the case of Bibekananda Das (Supra), have observed as follows:
"11. From the foregoing discussions, the following conclusions unhesitatingly emerge :
(i) During the relevant time, an untrained (graduate) teacher was eligible to be appointed as an assistant teacher in a non-government (aided) High School. He was not eligible to receive trained (graduate) scale of pay. Untrained (graduate), scale of pay, however, was admissible to him. The petitioner being a pre 1993 appointee, his appointment cannot be dis-
approved merely because he does not possess the training qualification (B. Ed.)
(ii) the Government instructions contained in letter No. 1074/EYS. dated 5.1.1991 at Annexure-C/3 cannot be a bar against the petitioner in view of the fact that he was appointed on 6.11.1989 prior to the issuance of the said letter; and
(iii) the State Government has already approved the post (with petitioner's name) against additional section in Pipli High School, Pipli."
16. Thus, from the order of this Court passed in O.J.C. No.14595 of 1997 read with the decision of this Court in the case of Bibekananda Das (Supra), it appears that the petitioner is entitled to the salary for the months of untrained period he had worked. It is very unfortunate to observe that in spite of the order of this Court, the State Government, instead of filing any Special Leave Petition or any other review petition, passed the order of termination of the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. No doubt, such order was not given effect to due to
- 11 -
the interim order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal Case No.13 of 2007. Thus, the petitioner‟s services continued till the final disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. Since the salary was not paid in spite of continuance of services of the petitioner, he had to approach this Court again in W.P.(C) No.16521 of 2008 and this Court, vide order dated 12.11.2008, disposed of the same with the following direction:
"12.11.2008
1.Xx xx xx
2.The grievance of the petitioner being simple, I dispose of this Writ Petition with observation that if the petitioner submit his arrear bills through the Headmaster of the School, the same shall be scrutinized by the Inspector of Schools-opposite party no.3 and if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to his salary as claimed, necessary action shall be taken for disbursement of the same as expeditiously as possible. It is needless to say that this Court has not examined the merits of the contentions and the decisions shall be taken by the authorities in consonance with law."
17. In pursuance of the above order, the petitioner admittedly got salary for the period from 14.12.2000 to 31.05.2001 and 14.12.2003 to 17.04.2007 vide order dated 15.02.2010. It appears that the arrear salary for certain period was not paid for which the petitioner had to file W.P.(C) No.6568 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court on 24.07.2012 with the following order:
"24.07.2012
1. Heard Mr.R.Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for State-opposite parties.
2. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to release his
- 12 -
arrear dues, i.e, differential arrears consequent upon fixation of his pay in the revised scale w.e.f. 18.11.1999 to 31.12.2005 and differential arrears for the period from 01.01.2006 to 17.04.2007 in the revised scale i.e. as per pay revision made in the year 2006 w.e.f 01.01.2006 and arrear salary from 17.04.2007 onwards as well as current salary in terms of Rule 9 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment etc.) Rules, 1974 within a stipulated period.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a representation dated 17.02.2012 (Annexure-5) before opposite party No.3-Inspector of School, Cuttack Circle, Cuttack but the same has not yet been considered.
3. Considering the nature of grievance raised by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of directing opposite party No.3-Inspector of Schools, Cuttack Circle, Cuttack to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-5 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law. In case the petitioner is found to be entitled, as claimed, the same shall be paid within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
Xx xx xx xx"
The aforesaid order only directs for disposal of the representation of the petitioner for payment of arrear revised salary, differential arrears upon revision of the scale and arrear salary from 17.04.2007 onwards. It is admitted fact that W.P.(C) No.21931 of 2012 filed by the State against the order of the Tribunal is still pending before this Court but in the said writ petition, no stay order has been passed.
18. On further scrutiny of the copies vide Annexure-3 series, it appears that ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was approved from time to time by the Inspector of Schools. Sub-Rule-8 of Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 allows the management to appoint a teacher on ad hoc
- 13 -
basis subject to approval of the State Government. Since the Inspector of Schools has approved the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner in the scale of pay Rs.1400-2600/- with admissible DA as appears from Annexure-3 series, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said against the provisions of the Rules, 1974. In fact, this Court has also interfered in the matter from time to time for non-payment of the salary of the petitioner for the period the petitioner has worked.
19. The Tribunal has also observed in its order that by virtue of the decision of this Court in Smt. Pravati Kumari Udaysingh -V-
State of Orissa; 1998 (I) OLR 520, if the petitioner is appointed by the Managing Committee on stop gap arrangement, the appointment of the petitioner in that case would continue with such condition till a Selection Board candidate is available. In the instant case, the opposite parties do not claim that Selection Board candidate is available. The Tribunal has also passed order allowing the petitioner to continue in the post till regular substitute is available. It is admitted fact that the opposite parties have already paid the salary for the period 14.12.2000 to 31.5.2001 and 14.12.2003 to 17.04.2007 vide order dated
15.02.2010 for the work the petitioner rendered. Now, the petitioner claims the revised scale of pay basing on the ORSP Rules, 1998 and 2006. When the petitioner is working as Trained Science Graduate Teacher being appointed with effect of 18.11.1999 with the approval of the Inspector of Schools and has also received the salary on the scale of pay as admissible to the Science Trained Graduate Teacher, the revision
- 14 -
of salary under ORSP Rule, 1998 and 2006 as applicable to the regular teachers on such old scale of pay should be made available to him on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
20. It is reported in the case of State of Punjab and others - V- Jagjit Singh and others; (2017) 1 SCC 148 and at Paragraphs-56 to 60 have observed as under:
"56. We shall now deal with the claim of temporary employees before this Court.
57. There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again.
58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependants would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation.
- 15 -
59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below:-
"7. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
(a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
(d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays".
(emphasis supplied) India is a signatory to the above covenant, having ratified the same on 10.4.1979. There is no escape from the above obligation, in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee - whether engaged on regular or temporary basis.
60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being
- 16 -
discharged by regular employees, holding the same/ corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/ establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post."
With due respect to the above decision, it appears that the temporary employee even if working on the same post, which is also can be occupied by a regular employee, the scale of pay for such regular employee should be made also applicable to the temporary employee. On the other hand, there cannot be discrimination between the employees when they are performing equal work as per the provisions of the Constitution.
- 17 -
21. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has allowed the petitioner to work till a regular substitute is available and he is continuing as a Trained Science Graduate Teacher in the said school. There is no submission of the opposite parties that any Selection Board candidate is available to the school when the petitioner is working as a teacher and the order of the Tribunal has not been set at rest, there is no point in disallowing the scale of pay of a regular teacher under revised scale of pay to the petitioner. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is not only entitled to the revised scale of pay from 18.11.1999 to 31.12.2005 and the revised scale of pay with effect from 01.01.2006 but also he is entitled to the arrear salary from 17.04.2007 on such revised scale of pay of course subject to verification of the period he worked. Pending of W.P.(C) No.21931 of 2012 is not a bar to pay the arrear salary or revised arrear salary as he has worked as Trained Science Graduate Teacher as no interim order is passed therein. Moreover, till the disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner cannot go in empty stomach while performing his job. So, from 17.04.2007 he is also entitled to arrear salary on revised scale of pay. The point is answered accordingly.
22. CONCLUSION In the writ petition, it has been prayed to set aside the order dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure-7) passed in consonance with the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6568 of 2012, which was communicated to the petitioner on 22.11.2013 and further it has been prayed for fixation
- 18 -
of pay of the petitioner in the revised scale with effect from 18.11.1999 to 31.12.2005 and differential arrears for the period from 01.01.2006 to 17.04.2007 in the revised scale, i.e., as per the revision made in the year 2006 with effect from 01.01.2006.
23. On going through Annexure-7, it appears that the District Education Officer has rejected the representation observing that he is not entitled to any arrear salary for his illegal and unauthorized occupation of the post for the claim period and the State has preferred W.P.(C) No.21931 of 2012 against the order of the Tribunal passed in Appeal Case No.13 of 2007. When the petitioner is entitled to arrears of salary till 17.04.2007 on revised scale and afterwards also, as observed above, Annexure-7 cannot be sustained in law. Apart from this, when the opposite party has preferred writ petition against the order of the Tribunal, which has allowed the petitioner to work with such scale of pay and this Court has not stayed that order till date, the order passed in Annexure-7 refusing the entitlement of the petitioner is de hors the law. Hence, Annexure-7 is liable to be quashed and the Court do so. At the same time, this Court directs for re-fixation of pay of the petitioner for the period of duty he rendered on scale of pay as per the ORSP Rules, 1998 and 2006, as admissible to the teachers of grant-in-aid schools and on such rate from 17.04.2007 till date. If it is found that grant-in- aid school of the petitioner has been withdrawn with effect from 01.03.2017, the opposite parties would not calculate the pay for the period from 01.03.2017. When later on the grant-in-aid is again made
- 19 -
applicable to the said school and the petitioner is found to have performed duty in the school, he would be paid such scale of pay as available to the Science Trained Graduate Teacher. Entire exercise, as directed above, be completed within a period of three months from today.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
................................
Dr.D.P.Choudhury,J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 25th Day of July, 2017/B.Nayak