State of Orissa & Ors. etc. Vs. Niranjan Nayak & Anr. etc.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3179 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23835 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19-04-1995 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C.No. 1196 of 1994)
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 3180-3201 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.18921, 21506, 21516/96, 3839, 4560, 5216, 5868, 7924, 7926-28, 8456-57, 8461-67, 8774 and 9775/97)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23835 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19-04-1995 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C.No. 1196 of 1994)
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 3180-3201 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.18921, 21506, 21516/96, 3839, 4560, 5216, 5868, 7924, 7926-28, 8456-57, 8461-67, 8774 and 9775/97)
Petitioner: State of Orissa & Ors. etc.
Respondent: Niranjan Nayak & Anr. etc.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3179 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23835 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19-04-1995 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C.No. 1196 of 1994)
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 3180-3201 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.18921, 21506, 21516/96, 3839, 4560, 5216, 5868, 7924, 7926-28, 8456-57, 8461-67, 8774 and 9775/97)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23835 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 19-04-1995 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C.No. 1196 of 1994)
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 3180-3201 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.18921, 21506, 21516/96, 3839, 4560, 5216, 5868, 7924, 7926-28, 8456-57, 8461-67, 8774 and 9775/97)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & D.P.WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 21, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. Jana Kalyan Das, and Mr. S. Misra, Advocate for (Mr. P.N. Misra) Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. A. Mariarputham, Mr. Mohan Kr. Mohanty, Ms. Aruna Mathur and Jaya Salva, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
1974 Rules – Rule 9 – Held High Court decided the appeal without reference to relevant rules which prescribed 1st April 1981 as the cut off date for acquisition of qualifications – Held cut off date is valid and bears relevance to the object to be achieved – In view of pendency of a number of writ petition before High Court on the basis of rule 9, it is desirable to allow appeals and direct High Court to consider matter afresh.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Orissa High Court, made on April 19, 1995 in O.J.C. No.1196 of 1994 and batch.
4. The Government has prescribed April 1, 1981 as the cut off date for acquisition of the qualification and those who have acquired the qualifications prior to that date are entitled to the additional amounts as prescribed under the Rules. The High Court has allowed the writ petitions without reference to the relevant Rules. It is settled law that the cut off date has to be valid and bears reasonable relationship to the object sought to be achieved.
5. It is stated that the teachers are relying upon Rule 9 of the 1974 Rules. We are informed that several writ petitions are pending in the High Court on the basis of Rule 9. In that view of this matter, it may be desirable that all these matters be decided by the High Court.
6. Taking an over all view of all the facts, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The High Court is at liberty to consider the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the respondents states that orders were implemented subject to the result of the appeals. Implementation of the order does not stand on the way of the High Court to have the matters examined. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Orissa High Court, made on April 19, 1995 in O.J.C. No.1196 of 1994 and batch.
4. The Government has prescribed April 1, 1981 as the cut off date for acquisition of the qualification and those who have acquired the qualifications prior to that date are entitled to the additional amounts as prescribed under the Rules. The High Court has allowed the writ petitions without reference to the relevant Rules. It is settled law that the cut off date has to be valid and bears reasonable relationship to the object sought to be achieved.
5. It is stated that the teachers are relying upon Rule 9 of the 1974 Rules. We are informed that several writ petitions are pending in the High Court on the basis of Rule 9. In that view of this matter, it may be desirable that all these matters be decided by the High Court.
6. Taking an over all view of all the facts, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The High Court is at liberty to consider the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the respondents states that orders were implemented subject to the result of the appeals. Implementation of the order does not stand on the way of the High Court to have the matters examined. No costs.
