STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. versus DAMODAR NAYAK AND ANR.

A

B

STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR, v. OAMODAR. NA YAK AND ANR.

MARCH 31, 1997'

(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

1997.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2666 of

.

. . ·

' .

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-

456

I

STATE v. DAMODAR NAY AK

I

457

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 21, 1989. Therefore, the. question arises : whether the second respoµdent for payirient of salary to the first respon- is entitled tO receive grant~in-aid 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.

. . .

. .

. .

.

·.

0

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.

i'

i

'

Appeal aJ.lowed. . -

.,

.

,,

...

..

1

••

.

i