JUDGMENT :

Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J.

Challenge has been made to the order of rejection of the representation made by the petitioner to the opposite party No.1.

2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Teacher with effect from 21.11.1988 by the then Managing Committee of Malati Devi Girls’ High School, At-Padmapur, in the district of Bhadrak. The said School got permission in the year 1989 and subsequently recognized in the year 1992 under the relevant provisions of the Education Act (hereinafter called “the Act”) and the Rules made thereunder. The staff of the School including the present petitioner were duly approved by the Director of Secondary Education, Odisha vide office order No.8118 dated 29.11.2007. Be it stated, vide Government Gazette Notification dated 27.9.1991 the Hindi Teacher who had acquired B.A., Kovida and Hindi training was allowed to draw the revised scale of pay of Rs.1,400-2,300/- but at the time of approval of the post of the petitioner vide Annexure-1 his pay was wrongly fixed at Rs.975-1,660/-instead of said scale of pay. As per the 6th Pay Commission, scale of pay of Hindi Teachers have also been revised according to their qualification, i.e., Rs.4,500-7,000/- and Rs.5,000-8,000/-. The petitioner drawing the attention of the authorities made representation to disburse the arrear revised salary in the scale of pay of Rs.1,400-2,300/-by illustrating the case of one Hindi Teacher in Balasore Circle who being in the similar footing has been sanctioned the said revised scale of pay vide office order No.10508 dated 21.11.2009.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that since no action was taken on the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 28085 of 2011 before this Court and such case was disposed of on 25.6.2013 directing the opposite party No.1 to finalise the claim of the petitioner on the basis of 1991 resolution. The opposite party No.1 without considering the case of the petitioner with proper prospective, rejected his representation showing the main reason that the petitioner is not entitled to Trained Graduate scale, i.e., Rs.1,400-2,600/- as he has no basic qualification of bachelor degree with Ratna from Rastrabhasa, Wardha. It is asserted by the petitioner that he has not claimed his qualification equivalent to the Trained Graduate scale and he has made the claim on the basis of the gazette notification 1991 to receive the scale of pay not as Trained Graduate Teacher but as Hindi Teacher. On the other hand, it is stated that the petitioner had acquired qualification B.A., Kovida with training (Praveen) before appointment for which he claims the scale of pay as prevalent from 1991 to be effective from 1989. But the opposite parties without understanding his case approved the scale of pay of Rs.975-1,660/- which has been given to the Intermediate with Kovida or Matric with Kovida but upon the qualification acquired by the petitioner. The opposite parties without analyzing the facts of the case have resorted to wrong path by dismissing his representation. Besides, 100 Girls’ High Schools including the School of the petitioner got grant-in-aid where also he has been shown with qualification B.A. with Kovida and training which obviously shows he has possessed same by the time he got appointment. According to the petitioner the appointment being made in accordance with Sub-Section (2) of Section 7-B of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and being duly approved by the Government in 2007 with effect from 1998, he prayed to quash Annexure-7 and grant the scale of pay of Rs.1,400-2,300/- as per the resolution 1991.

4. Per contra, the opposite party No.3 filed counter stating that the petitioner’s School was allowed to avail grant-in-aid with effect from 22.9.2007 being re-notified under 100