SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ori) 633

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
Pratap Chandra Nayak & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 17614 of 2016 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India.)
Decided On : 02-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
M/s. Sameer Kumar Das, S.K. Mishra, P.K. Behera, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. R.N. Acharya, Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department., for the Respondent

Headnote:

Aided Educational Institution - Salary Arrears - Odisha Education Act, 1969, Section 3(b), GIA Order, 1994 - The court discussed the provisions of the Odisha Education Act, 1969, and the GIA Order, 1994, and interpreted the concept of aided educational institutions and the entitlement of staff members to salary arrears. The court emphasized that once an institution receives aid, it becomes an aided educational institution and its staff should be treated as borne in the common cadre. The court also highlighted the obligation of the authorities to ensure the functioning of the school and the entitlement of the petitioners to receive salary during the period they were prevented from performing their duties.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, appointed in an aided educational institution, were prevented from performing their duties due to a dispute, and their salary arrears were not paid for the period. The court found that the petitioners were entitled to receive salary arrears for the period they were unable to work.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners, being appointed in an aided educational institution, were entitled to receive salary arrears for the period they were prevented from performing their duties.

Issues: The issues were whether the adjustment of the petitioners in other schools should be treated as a fresh appointment and whether the petitioners were entitled to arrear salary for the period they were unable to work.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the adjustment of the petitioners in other schools should not be treated as a fresh appointment and that the petitioners were entitled to receive salary arrears for the period they were prevented from performing their duties.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the authorities to release the arrear salary of the petitioners from 01.03.2013 to 12.06.2019 within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order.

JUDGMENT

Sashikanta Mishra, J. - The petitioners have undertaken multiple journeys to this Court seeking the desired relief. The present writ application which, hopefully would be their last in so far as this particular grievance is concerned, has been filed seeking the following relief:

     'Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to direct the opp.party no.3 to release the arrear as well as the current salary of the petitioners already sanctioned vide order under Annexure-5 and 6 respectively within a stipulated period'

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner no.1 was appointed as the Headmaster of the School by the Managing Committee after following due process of selection upon death of the previous incumbent. The petitioner no.2 was appointed against the post of Assistant Teacher. The school, namely, Mangala U.P. School at Naguan in the district of Jajpur was established in the year 1992 and was notified as an aided educational institution as per Section-3(b) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 (in short, the Act) w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and block grant was sanctioned and released in favour of staff members under the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994. The appointment of the petitioners was approved and they were in receipt of block grant by the then District Inspector of Schools, Jajpur. While the school was functioning as usual, a dispute arose among the villagers resulting in locking of the school by some of them. The D.I. of Schools ordered for opening of the school with the help of police but because of protest by the villagers, the same could not be done. Accordingly, by letter dated 16.03.2012, the D.I. of Schools suggested to the Director Elementary Education, Odisha for adjustment of the petitioners in neighbouring schools. Since no action was taken, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.23755 of 2015, which was disposed of directing the Director, Elementary Education to consider the claim of the petitioners. However, the claim of the petitioners was rejected by order dated 31.03.2016 of the Director, against which the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10848 of 2016. By order dated 29.04.2016, this Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

    'The petitioner no.1 is the Headmaster and petitioner no.2 is an Assistant Teac her in Mangala U.P. School, Naguan in the district of Jajpur. The school in question is a Block Grant School. The grievance of the petitioners is that due to the internal rivalry between two groups in the village, the school was closed. They approached the authorities to adjust them in nearby schools, since they are approved staffs.

    But then by order no.6130 dated 31.3.2016 passed by the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha, vide Annexure-15, the representations were rejected on the ground that there is no rule or guideline for transfer/adjustment/deployment of Block Grant Teachers.

    Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bisoi, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department.

    When a school was closed due to the internal rivalry between two groups in the village, it is incumbent on the part of the educational authorities as well as the District Administration to see that school is opened and students prosecute their studies in the said school. Being helpless, the petitioners made representations to adjust them in nearby school.

    They do not have any option. The petitioners did not claim that they should be adjusted or transferred to any particular school.

    In view of the fact that the school is closed, the Block Education Officer, Rasulpur, opposite party no.3, shall adjust the petitioners in any Block Grant School of the district within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The District Collector, Jajpur shall take steps for opening of school so that the career o f the stude

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top