Page 1 of 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.7363 of 2013

Anil Kumar Rana and others

…. Petitioners

Mr. K. Rath, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Orissa and others

….

Opposite Parties

Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, ASC

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER

21.06.2022

R.K.Pattanaik, J

04.

1. Instant writ petition under Article(s) 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, 1950 is at the behest of the Petitioners

questioning the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned

decision and consequential action of the Principal, ITI,

Balasore (O.P.No.4) vide Annexure-5 and for having changed

the nomenclature of the post held by them as Assistant

Training Officers (ATOs) to Part Time Guest Instructors

(PTGIs) and further instructing to release their remuneration

on hourly basis as unilateral, arbitrary and malafide and

therefore, to quash it and also to direct the Opposite Parties to

grant salary @ Rs.9,300/- per month as per the ORSP Rules,

2008 with consequential benefits.

// 2 //

Page 2 of 7

2. It is claimed by the Petitioners that the Opposite Parties

particularly O.P.No.4 changed the nomenclature of the post

without any prior notice to them and took steps to grant

remuneration on hourly basis payable to PTGIs. It is further

claimed that in order to frustrate the order of status quo passed

in W.P.(C) No.22267 of 2012 and future prospects of the

Petitioners, such decision was taken by the Opposite Parties

notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioners were engaged on

contractual basis in different cadres of Industrial Training

Institution, Balasore (ITI) pursuant to Annexure-1 series. It is

apprised to the Court that the Petitioners were engaged under a

scheme for upgradation of ITIs in the State and in that regard,

necessary provision was made to appoint contractual faculty

and accordingly, the Petitioners were engaged to meet the

immediate necessity with a consolidated remuneration of

Rs.4750/- as per the ORSP Rules, 1998 but even after the

introduction of 6th Pay Commission for adopting an uniform

scale of pay towards monthly remuneration payable with effect

from 1^st September, 2009, it was not allowed in their favour

despite the guidelines issued under the centrally sponsored

scheme to ensure excellence of the ITIs and notifications

issued from time to time by the State Government in that

regard.

3. The Petitioners have highlighted upon the fact by pleading

that in the year 2010, by order No.13850 dated 10^th August,

2010 of the Director, Technical Education & Training

// 3 //

Page 3 of 7

(O.P.No.2), decision was taken to appoint contractual

employees against the posts held by them which was

challenged in W.P.(C) Nos.2309 and 2856 of 2011 which were

disposed of with a direction to the authority to accept their

applications condoning age and giving weightage on past

experience by referring to Annexure-3. Further pleaded that a

selection by fresh advertisement was also challenged in

W.P.(C) No.22267 of 2012, wherein, as an interim measure,

order of status quo was passed in favour of the Petitioners to

retain them as ATOs. Again pleaded that one more writ

petition in W.P.(C) No.22264 of 2012 was filed by the

Petitioners for a direction to grant current and arrear salary

with effect from 1^st September, 2012 @ Rs.9,300/- per month

at par with ORSP Rules, 2008 instead of Rs.4,750/- under

ORSP Rules, 1998 and in that connection, W.P.(C) No.22264

of 2012 was filed which was disposed of with a direction to

the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Employment, Technical

Education & Training Department, Bhubaneswar (O.P.No.1)

to examine their demand submitted through a representation.

It is also apprise