Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. versus DAMODAR NAYAK AND ANR. on 31 March 1997
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
A
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR,
v.
OAMODAR. NA YAK AND ANR.
MARCH 31, 1997'
B (K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
Se,:..,ice Law-Grant-in-aid Scheml~Entiilen;e,;t to salary 'under tiie Scl1em~espq11de11t appoi11ted as. Lecture~uestion 'whether he wds en-titled to receive lf'ant-i11-aid for payment of salary from ilie date of his acquir-e i1ig qualification 01' froli1 the date of i11itial 'ajJpointmeiit-Held admittedly, since the first respo11de11t 011 the date of his appointnlei;t w~s not pm:sessing the reqitisite qualification and acquired the sa1i1e only 011 March :21; l989, he will be eligible to the be1tefit of the grant-in~aid ~.e.f April 1, 1989 ai1d'oi1-. ·. ·, ' wardS.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2666 of 1997. . .. · ' .
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.96 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 3548 of 1996.
E P.N. Misra for the Appellants.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The report of the Registry indicates that the service is complete. However, the respondents are not appearing either in person or through F counsel.
Leave granted.
The question limited to the notice is : whether the respondent would be entitled to payment of salary under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme from the G date of initial appointment till he improved his qualification or from the date of his acquiring the qualification? The admitted position is that respondent No. 1 came to be appointed as a lecturer in 1976. The Govern-ment issued clarification on January 5, 1987 that unqualified lectures having minimum second class, i.e., 48% or above and below 54% of marks in P.G. H examination and appointed on or after 1.8.1977 in recognised non-Govern- I
I
ment Colleges would be eligible to receive· grant-in-aid. The Resolution A dated September 13, 1983 issued by the Government prescribes the qualification for recruitment of .L'ecturers of affiliated Colleges which indicates that "candidate not holding an M. Phil degree should possess a high second Class Master's degree, i.e., 54% marks and a second class Honours/Pass in the B.A./B. ,Cpm./B:S~. examinafion.", Respondent No. 1 B secured 53.9% marks, ~hich is almost equivaleiit of 54% niarks, on March is 21, entitled 1989. Therefore, the. question arises : whether the second respoµdent tO receive grant~in-aid 0for payirient of salary to the first respon-dent from the date of his acquiririg qualification or from the date of initial appointment? Admittedly, sl~ce the first respondent on the date of his appointment was not possessing the requisite qualification anci acquired c. the\ame only oh March 21, 1989 he will be eligible to th~ benefit of the. grant-in-aid w'.e.f. Apr1il, 1989 dnd onwards. . ·. . . . . . . .
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court passed· on April 23, 1996 in OJC No. 3548/96, to that extent stands modified. No costs. · · ·
O·
T.N.A. Appeal . . aJ.lowed. -.,
i' i '
,, ...
.. 1 •• . i