Orissa High Court: The present petition was filed by the petitioner, a Mathematics Lecturer of a Non-Government Aided Junior College, challenging the order of the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, which denied his claim for promotion to Senior Lecturer and Reader. A Single Judge Bench of Dixit Krishna Shripad, J., while allowing the petition, quashed the rejection order that denied promotion to the Lecturer under the Orissa Non-Government Aided College Lecturers’ Placement Rules, 2014 (‘2014 Placement Rules’) and held that the Lecturer satisfied the eligibility conditions under the 2014 Rules, and further directed the State to grant the benefits prospectively.
Background:
The Lecturer joined the Institution on 01-08-1993 as Lecturer in Mathematics (First Post), based on the appointment order dated 20-07-1993. The Institution was receiving Grant-in-Aid and was listed among the 255 Non-Government Aided Junior Colleges in Annexure-A of the Odisha Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009 (‘GIA Order’). His appointment was approved against the First Post, and he was granted Block Grant from 01-02-2009 through an Office Order issued by the Director of Higher Education. He accordingly received the Block Grant.
Consequently, GIA Order was modified by virtue of 2014 Placement Rules promulgated under section 10(1) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (‘1969 Act’) wherein from 01-01-2014, Lecturers in Non-Government Aided Colleges earning Rs 9,300—34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs 4600 could get promoted to a higher Group-A Pay Scale if they met Rule-4 eligibility under the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 2008 (‘ORSP Rules’). The Lecturer claimed that he was in this Pay Band when the rules came into force.
The GIA Order, 2009 was amended by the GIA Amendment Order, 2014 (effective from 01-01-2014), which said eligible staff would get initial pay + Grade Pay with five increments under ORSP Rules. Based on the order, the Lecturer was approved for Grant-in-Aid from 01-01-2018, fixed at Rs 38,067 in the Rs 9,300 to 34,800 Pay Scale with Rs 4600 Grade Pay.
The Lecturer’s claim under the 2014 Placement Rules wasn’t properly reviewed in the Lok Adalat on 01-02-2023. The Additional Chief Secretary asked the department to examine it within four weeks after hearing the Lecturer. However, the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary rejected the claim.
The Lecturer argued that the rejection order was unsustainable, as the reasons given did not align with the government’s own records. He pointed out that the Institution was receiving full Grant-in-Aid, he was placed in the appropriate Pay Band, and Rule 3 of the 2014 Placement Rules was applicable. He further contended that being part of a Common Cadre was not a mandatory requirement, and even if it were, he met the necessary qualifications. Additionally, he asserted that the relevant rules should be construed in a manner that served the interests of employees of Educational Institutions.
The government counsel upon disagreement, defended the order, and warned that granting relief could affect the State’s budget and would also open up flood gates of litigations.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the Institution was listed among the 255 Non-Government Aided Junior Colleges, indicating that it had been receiving full Grant-in-Aid since 06-06-2009. The Court further observed that the Lecturer was in the Pay Scale of Rs 9,300 to Rs 34,800 with a Grade Pay of Rs 4,600 as of the cutoff date, i.e., 01-01-2014, when Rule 3 of the 2014 Placement Rules came into effect.
The Court emphasised that the Lecturer had produced the salary slips for the relevant period duly authenticated by the competent authorities as to the pay scale and the grade pay in which he was drawing the salary, the same having been approved by the Higher Education Department Notification dated 22-02-2013 referable to ORSP Rules making it a case of full Grant-in-Aid. The Court further examined that being a member of Common Cadre was not mandatory for benefits under Placement Order, 2014, since Section 10-C of the 1969 Act used the word ‘may’, giving the Government discretion.
The Court opined that the policy aimed to boost teacher morale and attract meritorious candidates to the noble profession of teaching as it was the teachers, who played a pivotal role in building nations & civilizations. The Court further highlighted that even during World War II, the British Government did not reduce teachers’ pay, though it did in all other employment sectors.
The Court pointed out that the citizens’ rightful claims could not be denied by fear-based arguments. Moreover, if the State created a policy, the Court could not contradict such relief. The Court observed that the Government and its bodies under Article 12 of the Constitution must follow their own policies, and when a citizen wins through due process, the Government should celebrate that victory.
The Court emphasised that the argument of ‘opening of floodgates of litigations’ was not acceptable, since the system operated on the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, and the Rule of Law required the State to abide by law, especially when dealing with the worthy claims of its employees. Quoting Marcus Tullius Cicero, the Court reiterated that “law should be obeyed even if heavens fell down.” The Court, therefore concluded that the State could pre-empt such floodgates by voluntarily extending the benefit of its policy, rather than forcing similarly situated employees into litigation.
The Court referred to State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, wherein it was observed that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly irrespective of the fact that only one person had approached the Court for relief, since that was how, the State, as a Model Employer, was expected to conduct itself.
The Court, therefore, while allowing the petition, quashed the order and gave direction to grant the benefits of Placement Order 2014 to the Lecturer with prospective effect, within a period of eight weeks. The Court further held that any default or delay shall be viewed seriously if the Lecturer was driven to another legal battle.
[Lokanath Behera v. State of Orissa, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 3044, decided on 13-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Kunal Kumar Swain, K. Swain and J.R. Khuntia, Advocates
For the Opposite Parties: D.N. Lenka, Addl. Government Advocate, Mahendra Kumar Sahoo, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
