JUDGMENT
I.M. Quddusi, J.
1. The point involved in this case is whether the Orissa Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim of a person concerning his continued past services i.e., for the period during which he was not a Government servant and when the same related to the non-Government service period and the entire benefits are to be given by the Government, since later he became a Government servant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Teacher in a non-Government School in Kunjabihari Girls High School at Kantilo in the District of Nayagarh. The Institution was taken over by the Government with effect from 7.6.1994 and in this way the petitioner became Government servant from the date of taking over of the Institution. The petitioner filed an Original Application before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cut tack Bench, under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, claiming her promotion to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher with effect from 12.5.1989, when she acquired the B.Ed, qualification. She further prayed for quashing the promotion order of Respondent No. 5 dated 3.4.1985 and its approval by the Director granted on 1.10.1998, Admittedly, all the claims of the petitioner relate to the period before the Institution in question was taken over by the Government. But as soon as she acquired the status of a Government servant she filed Original Application as a Government servant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that she had no other way except to file Original Application before the Tribunal as she was claiming benefit of her past services which is in continuity of the present services, the effect of which would go to her services as Government servant. The Tribunal framed two points for adjudication, which are as hereunder:
(i) Whether the applicant should be promoted to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher with effect from 12.5.1989 ?
(ii) Whether the order of promotion of respondent No. 5 dated 3.4.1985 given by the Managing Committee and the Director’s approval on the same dated 1.10.1993 should be interfered with?
The Tribunal vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.2.1998 has held that it has no jurisdiction, as the above questions are related to the period of services of the petitioner before the School in question was taken over by the Government, and accordingly, dismissed the Original Application.
3. Shri Routray, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that it has already been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rama Panigrahi v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 2003 (I) OLR 438 (FB) that on and from the date of non-Government educational institution becomes a Government school and the teaching and non-teaching staff acquire the status of Government servants, grievances raised by them come within the purview of the Administrative Tribunal Act and consequently, a proceeding pending in the High Court requires to be transferred to the Orissa Administrative Tribunal for decision in terms of Section 29 of the Act. It was also held therein that the case law made in the case of Nalini Prava Dash v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 2000 (I) OLR 447 is the correct law.
4. In the case of Nalini Prava Dash v. State of Orissa and Ors. (supra), it has been held that the school where the petitioner was teaching was taken over by the Government and the appointment of the petitioner was approved with effect from 7.6.1994. The petitioner acquired the status of a Government servant with effect from that date and her claim for grant-in-aid in the scale of pay with effect from 1.3.1987 would be a claim against the State Government for arrears of pay at a particular rate, Obviously, the claim of a Government servant against the Government may be for a prior period for which the Government servant will have to approach the appropriate forum, i.e., the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. Learned Standing Counsel for the Schools and Mass Education Department has submitted that the Full Bench in the case of Smt. Rama Panigrahi (supra) has decided the question as to whether a writ application pending in this Court is liable to be transferred to Orissa Administrative Tribunal after taking over the School by the Government and, therefore, there is difference between the law settled by the Full Bench and the instant Case. In the instant case, the Original Application was filed before the Tribunal whereas in the case of Smt. Rama Panigrahi (supra) a writ application was pending before the High Court prior to taking over the institution by the Government.
5. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to peruse the relevant provisions of Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act which are quoted as under:
15. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of State Administrative Tribunals: (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts except the Supreme Court in relation to:
(a) recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State;
(b) all service matters concerning a person [not being a person referred to in Clause (c) of this Sub-section or a member, person or civilian referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14], appointed to any civil service of the State or any civil post under the State and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with the affairs of the State or of any local or other authority under the control of the State Government or of any Corporation or Society owned or controlled by the State Government.
(c) all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the State concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in Clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by any such local or other authority or Corporation or Society or other body as is controlled or owned by the State Government at the disposal of the State Government for such appointment.
A perusal of the above quoted provisions show that the Orissa Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction in respect of the recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State. Further all service matters concerning a person appointed to any civil service of the State or any civil post under the State and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with the affairs of the State or of any local or other authority under the control of the State Government or of any corporation or Society owned or controlled by the State Government and all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the State concerning a person appointed to any service or pose being a person whose services have been placed by any such local or other authority or Corporation or Society or other body as is controlled or owned by the State Government at the disposal of the State Government for such appointment also come within the purview of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. In the instant matter, as soon as the petitioner acquired the status of a Government servant all matters pertaining to her continuous service whether present or past would definitely come within the purview of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. The interpretation of “all service matters” cannot be given a narrow meaning. Its scope is wide and that is why the Legislature has taken care to add “all service matters” in the Act and thus the interpretation of “all service matters” would be “service matter of a person continuing in a post after acquiring the status of a Government servant” who was holding a post and continuing in that post.
6. Therefore, in the instant case since the petitioner claims her promotion as a Trained Graduate Teacher with effect from 12.5.1989 i.e., prior to taking over of the institution by the Government it would certainly come within the jurisdiction of the Orissa-Administrative Tribunal as in case her claim is allowed she would certainly get the benefit of the same as a Government servant also.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ application is allowed in part. The judgment and order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated 24.2.1998 in O.A. No. 1432(C) of 1995 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider it afresh and dispose of the same on its own merit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
N. Prusty, J.
8. I agree.