State Of Odisha & Ors. vs Rajib Kumr Sahoo & Anr.

By the Bench;

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

The Appellants being the State of Odisha and their officials in this Intra-Court Appeal seek to assail the order dated 19^th February, 2024 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.13112 of 2021, whereby the Appellants have been directed to extend I.A., C.P.Ed scale to Respondent No.1.

The factual backdrop of the case, in a nutshell, as would reveal from the averments made in the writ petition as well as present writ appeal, is that Respondent No. 1 filed W.P.(C) No. 13112 of 2021 claiming a higher scale of pay inconsonance with his educational qualifications, i.e., B.A.,C.P.Ed., from the date of his initial appointment, along with payment of the differential arrear salary together with all periodical revisions, on the basis of the ratio laid down in Niranjan Nayak v. State of Orissa and Others, 2003 (II) OLR 321. Respondent No. 1 also sought to set aside Office Order No. 18368 dated 23^rd December, 2020 issued by the Director (ST), ST and SC Development Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar (Appellant No.2 herein).

In the writ petition, Respondent No. 1 claimed that, pursuant to the advertisement dated 31^st January, 2013 for the post of Physical Education Teacher (PET) in different ST and SC Development Department Secondary Schools in the district of Sundargarh, he submitted his candidature and was appointed as a PET in Government High School (SSD), Dengula in Sundargarh district, pursuant to Engagement Order No.2971 dated 13^th September, 2013 issued by the District Welfare Officer, Sundargarh. Thereafter, he joined in the said post and has been discharging his duties continuously. During course of his service, Respondent No. 1 was also subjected to transfer.

The grievance of Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition was that, despite possessing the educational qualification of B.A., C.P.Ed., he was allowed to draw the Matric C.P.Ed. scale of pay, ignoring his higher educational qualification. Respondent No.1 submitted several representations before the competent authorities seeking extension of benefit of the appropriate scale of pay, but to no effect. Consequently, Respondent No.1 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15582 of 2020, which was disposed of by order dated 20^th July, 2020 with a direction to the District Welfare Officer, Sundargarh, to consider his grievance in the light of the decision in Niranjan Nayak (supra). Pursuant to the said direction, the case of the Respondent No.1 was considered and rejected vide Office Order No.18368 dated 23^rd December, 2020. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, Respondent No.1 filed W.P.(C) No.13112 of 2021 assailing the said order. The writ petition was disposed of by learned Single Judge vide order dated 19^th February, 2024 holding that Respondent No.1 is entitled to I.A., C.P.Ed scale of pay and directed to extend such benefits as is being extended to similarly situated PETs working under the SC and ST Development Department in different schools.

Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the order dated 19^th February, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.13112 of 2021 was not complied with within a reasonable period. Due to non-compliance of the order impugned herein, Respondent No.1 filed CONTC No.5758 of 2024. During pendency of said contempt petition, the impugned order was complied with vide order dated 9^th July, 2025 and the CONTC was disposed of vide order dated 11^th July, 2025 accordingly. It is, therefore, submitted by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 that nothing remains to be adjudicated in the Writ Appeal, as the order passed in W.P.(C) No.13112 of 2021 has already been complied with since long and Respondent No.1 is in receipt of I.A.,C.P.Ed. Scale of pay.

Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellants, submits that the order was complied with as the Respondent No.1 filed the contempt petition. However, Respondent No. 1 is not entitled to the benefit extended to him. It is submitted that the I.A., C.P.Ed. scale of pay was being extended to PETs who were working under the School and Mass Education Department, Government of Odisha, but Respondent No. 1 was appointed and has been continuing in the ST and SC Development Department, Government of Odisha. Thus, the benefit of the I.A., C.P.Ed. scale of pay could not have been extended to Respondent No.1.

It is also submitted that the ratio in the case of Niranjan Nayak (supra) is not at all applicable to the case of Respondent No. 1, as said Niranjan Nayak was working under the School and Mass Education Department, and not under the ST and SC Development Department, as in the case of Respondent No.1. This material aspect was lost sight of by the learned Single Judge while adjudicating the writ petition. He further submits that not a single similarly situated PET has been extended with the benefit of the I.A., C.P.Ed scale of pay. Thus, Respondent No. 1 is not at all entitled to the same. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order dated 19^th February, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.13112 of 2021.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

It is not in dispute that Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a PET under the ST and SC Development Department, Government of Odisha, and was continuing as such. His claim was for extension of a higher scale of pay in consonance with his educational qualification, i.e., B.A., C.P.Ed. The learned Single Judge, while adjudicating W.P.(C) No. 13112 of 2021, directed the Appellants herein to extend the I.A., C.P.Ed. scale of pay to Respondent No. 1, who was working as a PET under the ST and SC Development Department.

On the aforesaid admitted factual backdrop, Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel, claimed that Respondent No. 1, having not worked under the School and Mass Education Department, was not entitled to receive the I.A., C.P.Ed. scale of pay. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, claimed that similarly situated PETs working under the ST and SC Development Department were being extended with the I.A., C.P.Ed. scale of pay. The learned Single Judge, holding that similarly situated PETs were being extended with the I.A., C.P.Ed. scale of pay and relying upon the ratio in the case of Niranjan Nayak (supra), directed the Appellants herein to extend the I.A., C.P.Ed. scale of pay to Respondent No. 1. The said order has already been implemented, and Respondent No. 1 has been extended with the I.A., C.P.Ed. scale of pay with effect from 23^rd September, 2019.

Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel, also does not dispute the same. He, however, submits that the benefit was extended in compliance with the direction in the impugned order, as the Respondent No.1 filed CONTC Petition.

In course of hearing, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, drew the attention of this Court to the documents under Annexure-17 series of the writ petition, annexed to the Additional Rejoinder affidavit filed by the writ Petitioner (Respondent No.1 herein). The averments made and the documents annexed to the Additional Rejoinder affidavit were not controverted by the Appellants. On perusal of the copy of Letter No. 2359 dated 20^th March, 2020 (Annexure-17 series to the Additional Rejoinder to the writ petition), issued by the District Welfare Officer, Kalahandi, and Order No. 4503 dated 26^th December, 2015, issued by the District Welfare Officer, Sundargarh, it is apparent that similarly situated PETs working under the ST and SC Development Department, Government of Odisha, have been extended with the benefit of the I.A., C.P.Ed. scale of pay. The said documents were not controverted by the Appellants either in the writ petition or in the present Writ Appeal.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that when similarly situated PETs working under the ST and SC Development Department, Government of Odisha, have already been extended the benefit of the I.A., C.P.Ed. scale of pay, the Respondent No. 1 should not be discriminated and denied similar benefits. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order dated 19^th February, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge under Annexure-1.

Hence, the Writ Appeal, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application.