REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1272 OF 2011

State of Orissa & Anr. …… Appellants

Versus

Mamata Mohanty …… Respondent

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 1246-1271 of 2011

Civil Appeal Nos. 1273-1274 of 2011

Civil Appeal Nos. 1277-1281 of 2011

Civil Appeal Nos. 1283 of 2011

Civil Appeal Nos. 1285-1287 of 2011

Civil Appeal Nos. 1289-1293 of 2011

Civil Appeal Nos. 1295-1300 of 2011

Civil Appeal Nos. 1302-1313 of 2011

Civil Appeal Nos. 1315-1321 of 2011

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1.

All the aforesaid appeals have been filed against the judgments

and orders of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack which have been

passed placing reliance on its earlier judgments in similar cases. The

facts and legal issues involved herein are the same. Thus, they are

heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment

and order. However, for convenience, Civil Appeal No. 1272 of 2011

is taken to be the leading case and some reference to facts would be

taken from other appeals as and when necessary in the context of legal

issues involved herein.

2.

The appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order

dated 22.3.2006 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 14157 of 2005.

FACTS:

3. (A) The respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in Niali College,

Niali, on 9.7.1979 and her appointment as such was approved by the

Director of Higher Education, Orissa, a statutory authority – the

appellant No. 2, vide order dated 18.12.1985, and she was granted the

benefit of receiving 1/3^rd grant-in-aid.

(B) In order to provide better facilities to teachers and enhance the

standard of higher education, the Government of Orissa, came out

with a Notification dated 6.10.1989 with a revised pay scale

enforceable with effect from 1.1.1986 as per the recommendations of

UGC. However, the said Notification was applicable only in such

2

cases where the post has been granted the benefit of grant-in-aid

Scheme by 1.4.1989 and person manning that post had a good

academic record i.e. 54 per cent or its equivalent grade in a Masters’

Course.

(C) Respondent did not make any representation before any authority

to get the benefit of the said Notification dated 6.10.1989, rather

approached the High Court on 11.11.2005 by filing Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 14157 of 2005 seeking a direction to the State Government

to pay the pre-revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 placing

reliance on the various orders passed by the High Court earlier in

cases of other persons e.g. in case OJC No. 3705 of 1987.

(D) The present appellants contested the said writ petition pointing

out that the respondent had secured only 40 per cent marks in her

Master’s course. She was by no means, eligible for appointment. Her

appointment, being not in consonance with law, remained illegal.

(E) The High Court placing reliance on its earlier judgments,

allowed the said writ petition giving the benefit of the U.G.C. pay

scale to her w.e.f. 1.6.1984. Hence, this appeal.

4.

The submissions made in all these appeals, particularly by the

respondents are that the High Court had been dealing with the subject

3

matter for a long time and judgments of the High Court have been

upheld by this court. Once the SLPs against the judgments of the

High Court which had been relied upon by the High Court while

deciding these cases, have been dismissed in limine, judicial

discipline and decorum demand that this Court should follow the same

order. Thus, the judgments and orders impugned herein did not

warrant any interference.

5.

On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned counsel for

the appellants that factual and legal issues invo