STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. versus ASWINI KUMAR DASH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 17-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. 
v. 
ASWINI KUMAR DASH AND ORS. ETC. 
MARCH 17, 1998 
B 
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Revision of pay scale--Govt. resolutions dt. 6.10.1989 and 6.11.1990-
C Teachers-Aided non-Govt. Colleges-Note to paragraph 2(1) of Resolution 
dt. 6.11.1990-Colleges affiliated on or before 1st of April 1989-Eligible for 
benefit of revised pay scales-.On challenge, High Court struck down the 
note to para 2(1) of the resolution dt. 6.11.1990-.0n appeal held, Resolution 
of 6th November 1990 does not curtail the scope of the Resolution of 
D 6.10.1989-Cut off date 1st of April 1989 fixed for grant of aid not arbitrary 
or unresaonable-High Court not justified in striking down the note to para 
.2(1) of Govt. Resolution dt. 6th November, 1990. 
The respondents were teachers in aided non-Government Colleges/ 
Educational Institutions. By Resolution dt. 6th October, 1989, the appellant-
E State Government decided to revise the pay scales of teachel'li working in all 
the affiliated Government Colleges and aided non-Government Colleges either 
covered or eligible to be covered under direct payment scheme till 1st April, 
1989. Thereafter, by a resolution dt. 6th November 1990 instructions were 
issued to regulate the revision of pay scales of different categories of teachel'li 
serving in non-aided Government Colleges of the State pursuant to its earlier 
F Resolution of 6.10.1989. A note appended to para 2(1) of the Resolution dt. 
6.11.1990 stated that colleges shall mean aided Colleges which were given 
Government concurrence and Univel'liity affiliation for opening of 3+ Degree 
Colleges by 1st of April 1989 and not thereafter. The respondents filed a writ 
petition challenging the above note on the ground that the coverage which 
G was given by the earlier resolution dt. 6.10.1989 was reduced as a result of 
the note appended to paragraph 2(1) of the Resolution dt. 6.11.1990. The 
High Court while allowing the writ petitions struck down the note to paragraph 
2(1) of the Government Resolution dt. 6.11.1990 and held that the respondents 
were entitled to higher scales of pay. Hence the present appeals. 
H 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
274 
~-
STATEv.A.K. DASH 
275 
HELD : 1.1. High Court erred in holding that the note to paragraph A 
- ~ 
2(1) of the Govt. Resolution of 6th November, 1990 was arbitrary and 
unreasonable. (283-B] 
; 
1.2. The two Resolutions cover the same field and the Resolution of 
6th November 1990 does not curtail the scope of the Resolution of 6th B 
October, 1989. The Resolution of 6th November 1990 which deals with 
. ...; 
teachers serving in aided non-Government Colleges of the State provides in 
paragraph 2 that the instructions in that Resolution shall apply to all 
categories of full-time teachers working in all aided non-Government Colleges 
either covered or eligible to be covered under direct payment schme till 1st c 
April 1989. This language is similar to the language in paragraph 3.1 of 
the Resolution of 6th October, 1989. The note states that colleges shall mean 
aided colleges which have been given Government concurrence and University 
affiliation for opening 3+ Degree Courses from 1st April, 1989 and not 
thereafter. The note sets out specifically what is implied in paragraph 3.1 
of the Resolution of 6th October, 1989, as also paragraph 2(1) of the Resolution D 
>-
of 6th November, 1990 since both are couched in similar language. (280-F] 
2. The cut off date of lst April, 1989 fixed for grant of aid cannot be 
considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. In the instant case the State 
Government has decided to provide grants-in-aid to cover the revised U.G.C. E 
scales of pay for those teachers in existing colleges which have recelved 
C'.overnment concurrence and University affiliation on or before 1st April, 
1989. The date has a direct nexus with the date of the decision to provide 
for such higher pay scales in the grant-in-aid to be given to the concerned 
-.<: 
colleges. Colleges which have secured Government concurrence or affiliation 
from the University after 1st April, I 989, cannot claim any right to the F 
higher grant-in-aid contrary to the policy as laid down by the State. The 
resolution of 6th November, 1990 cannot be challenged on the ground that 
it deprives the teachers of +2 institutions or intermediate colleges of the 
benefit of the resolution of 6th October, 1989 even though their colleges may G 
have received
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.