Skip to content


Kartik Ch. Mohanta and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Constitution

Court

Orissa High Court

Decided On

Case Number

O.J.C. No. 5735 of 1994

Judge

Reported in

1995(I)OLR310

Acts

Constitution of India - Article 226

Appellant

Kartik Ch. Mohanta and ors.

Respondent

State of Orissa and ors.

Appellant Advocate

A.K. Rath, K.K. Swain and M.R. Nayak

Respondent Advocate

Addl. Govt. Adv.

Disposition

Application allowed

Excerpt:


- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. - the headmaster of the school submitted the staff position as well as the all other relevant documents, but the inspector of schools by his letter dated 23-12-1989 annexed as annexure-1 approved the appointment of different employees and further indicated that the untrained teachers would acquire b......grant-in-aid from the state government with effect from 1-3-1987 and accordingly the inspector of schools called upon the head' master of the high school to submit the staff position and the connected records for approval of the inspector. the headmaster of the school submitted the staff position as well as the all other relevant documents, but the inspector of schools by his letter dated 23-12-1989 annexed as annexure-1 approved the appointment of different employees and further indicated that the untrained teachers would acquire b. ed. qualification within two years. as the inspector did not approve the appointment of one suren kumar barik peon of the high school, he approached this court by filing a writ petition which was registered as ojc no. 2404 of 1990 and pursuance to the direction given by this court in the aforesaid application, the inspector approved his appointment by order dated 10-4- 991 which has also been annexed to the writ application. it is further alleged that though the approval was with effect from 1-3-1987 but when the bills were sent the inspector released grant-in-aid only with effect from 1-3-1988. according to the petitioners they are entitled.....

Judgment:


G.B. Patnaik, J.

1. The petitioners are the employees of an aided educational institution in the district of Keonjhar. Their salary for some intervening period not having been released they have approached this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus.

2. It is alleged that the school became eligible to receive minimum grant-in-aid from the State Government with effect from 1-3-1987 and accordingly the Inspector of Schools called upon the Head' master of the high school to submit the staff position and the connected records for approval of the Inspector. The Headmaster of the school submitted the staff position as well as the all other relevant documents, but the Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 23-12-1989 annexed as Annexure-1 approved the appointment of different employees and further indicated that the untrained teachers would acquire B. Ed. qualification within two years. As the Inspector did not approve the appointment of one Suren Kumar Barik peon of the High School, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered as OJC No. 2404 of 1990 and pursuance to the direction given by this Court in the aforesaid application, the Inspector approved his appointment by order dated 10-4- 991 which has also been annexed to the writ application. It is further alleged that though the approval was with effect from 1-3-1987 but when the bills were sent the Inspector released grant-in-aid only with effect from 1-3-1988. According to the petitioners they are entitled to minimum grant-in-aid for a period from 1-4-1987 to 282-1988.

The further grievance of the petitioners is that even though the Inspector thereafter continued to release the grant-in-aid in favour of the teachers, but for the months of January end February, 1992 the grant-in-aid had not been released and accordingly they have approached this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Inspector.

3. The Government of Orissa has been evolving the principles of grant-in-aid to non-Government aided High Schools from time to time by issuing resolutions in the Education and Youth Services Department. During the period when the petitioners' institution became eligible to receive grant-in-aid, the resolution of the Government in the Education and Youth Services Department dated 17th March, 19 9 was in force. Thereafter on 5-9-1985 the Government of Orissa in the Education Department issued a direction to the Director of Secondary Education Orissa, Bhubaneswar, Indicating therein that the minimum grant admissible to teaching and non teaching employees of non-Government High Schools should be paid directly in accordance with the procedure laid down in the said letter. Under the resolution of the Government dated 17th March, 1979 a recognised High School becomes eligible to receive the minimum grant in-aid after four years from the order of presentation of candidates in the Final' High School Examination subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned in the said resolution and the rate of minimum grant has also been indicated in the resolution. Such school becomes eligible for being considered for the privilege for full grant in- ' aid after receipt of minimum grant-in-aid for three years as contained in the aforesaid resolution. In accordance with the Government letter dated 5-9-1985 indicating the procedure for direct payment of salary-component of the minimum grant-in-aid to the teaching and non teaching staff of the non-Government High Schools, the Headmaster of the school is required to prepare the pay bills in duplicate and send it to Inspector of Schools concerned along with absentee statements outer signed by the Secretary of the Managing Committee indicating the period of absence of individual employee during the period for which bill is submitted and .; in case the Secretary does not countersign the concerned Headmaster should send the bills to inspector of Schools with a remark to that effect On receipt of the bills the concerned authority Is duty bound to arrange to get the same checked to ensure the. correctness of the claims made and draw the amount for. disbursement. The question of approval of the teaching staff of a non-Government High School crops up only when the school becomes eligible to receive minimum grant-in-aid Since the Inspector of Schools by its order dated 28th December, 1989 approved the appointment of the teaching staff with effect from 1-3-1987, the employees of the school are entitled to receive the minimum grant-in-aid with effect from the date of approval and there is no reason why the grant-In-aid was released only with effect from 1-3-1933. It is no doubt true that this case was in the list today for admission, but in view of the order of the Inspector which has been annexed as Annexure-I. we do not think it necessary to issue notice to the Inspector particularly when the Inspector is represented by the learned Addl. Government Advocate who after going through the Annexure-1 fairly conceded that the teachers are emitted to minimum gram-in-aid with effect from 1-3-1987 in accordance with the Government resolution dated 17th March, 1979.

In the aforesaid premises, we would call upon the Inspector to pay minimum grant-in-aid in respect of the approved employees of Malda High School in the district of Keonjhar for the period 1-3-1987 till 23-2-19 i8 within a period of six months from the date of the order.

4. The further grievance of the petitioners is that for the two months they had not been paid their salary namely the months of January and February, 1992. Once the grant-in-aid has been released and was being paid regularly question of discontinuance does not arise unless for some reason the institution becomes ineligible and order to that effect is passed. In that view of the matter, if the salary of the petitioners for the aforesaid two months has not been paid so far, it may be paid within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

5. The writ application is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

R.K. Patra, J.

6. I agree


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //