JUDGMENT
P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. The above noted writ applications involving the common question of law and also, inter alia, the same relief by each of the writ petitioners, are disposed of by this common judgment, which shall abide the result in all the writ applications.
2. Keeping in view the dispute in question and inter alia, the relief sought for in accordance with the provision in the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions (Appointment of Lecturers Validation) Act, 1998 (in short, the ‘Act’, 1998) and the Orissa Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 (in short, ‘the Order, 1994″) and the provision in the Orissa Education Act, 1969 (in short, ‘the ‘Act, 1969’), a detailed documentation of fact in each of the cases is not. necessary. It is the admitted position on record that the appointment of each of the writ petitioners was not made in accordance with the provisions in the Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioners are working as Lecturers in aided colleges. The Act, 1998 was assented to by the Governor of Orissa on 10th of October, 1998 and the Act, 1998 came into force prospectively validating appointments of :
(i) lecturers of aided colleges; and
(ii) lecturers of aided junior colleges, who have been appointed on temporary basis against approved or admissible posts by the concerned Governing Bodies/Managing Committees during the period between 1st January, 1985 and 31st December, 1992 and in pursuance of such appointments if they are continuing as such having the requisite qualifications prescribed to hold such posts and are in the Pay Roll in the concerned Colleges against said approved or admissible posts, as the case may be. It was provided in that Act that validation of appointment of any Lecturer, as aforesaid, shall not put any person regularly and validly appointed or who may be appointed on the basis of recommendations made by the Selection Board prior to the commencement of the Act, 1998 to put such persons so appointed or to be appointed in the aforesaid manner in a disadvangeous position in any manner whatsoever. Thus, far there is no controversy.
3. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, 1998 provides that Lecturers whose appointments are so validated shall be governed by the Order, 1994. for the purpose of their entitlements, but they shall be entitled to receive grant-in-aid towards their salary costs only as per the scale of pay admissible to a Lecturer of Non-Government College and shall be entitled to receive the Grant-in-Aid towards the salary cost with effect from the date of commencement of this Act. So far as this provision in the Act, 1998 is concerned, the State Government put an inroad and embargo by issuing letters and Circulars from the Government and the Directorate of Higher Education intimating that payment of Grant-in-Aid shall be subject to stipulation Under Section 7 (C) (i) of the Act, 1969 and the Order, 1994. While the contentions of the petitioners in chorus is to the effect that Government cannot play such hide and seek policy by giving a right in one hand and avoiding to pay the entitlement by another measure, they further argued that since the appointments have been validated under the law, they are entitled to their salary which is admissible to them and which, under the provision of law. Government is bound to pay. Accordingly, the thrust of the argument of the petitioners is to issue writ of mandamus directing the State Govt. to make payment of the arrear salary within a stipulated time and the current salary regularly in accor4ance with the provisions in the Act, 1998 and the Order, 1994.
4. The stand of the State Government and the Directorate of Higher Education is two fold. Their first limb of argument is that the provision in the Act, 1998 cannot supersede Section 7 (C) (i) of the Act, 1969 and secondly the financial stringency of the State Govt. is so acute that it has readily no capacity to bear the burden to pay arrear or the regular salary to the Lecturers whose services have been validated under the Act, 1998. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate, Mr. M. K. Mohanty further stated that in respect of financial crisis the State Government has already issued White Paper. He further argued that in the absence of budgetary provision it will be of utter difficulty for the State Government to make payment of the salary as claimed by the petitioners. Accordingly he argued not to issue a writ of mandamus but to allow the Government some breathing time to make payment of the arrear and current salary of the Lecturers whose services have been validated under the Act, 1998.
5. In course of argument, several decisions were cited by both the parties, and in O.J.C. Nos. 8997 and 9624 of 2000 (Mrs. Laxmipriya Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors.), while dealing with similar matter, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.8.2001 delivered the judgment considering the aforesaid question raised and the above noted citations referred to by the parties. Therefore, a threadbare discussion of the points raised, the provision of law and the citations is no more necessary for this Court save and except to follow the ratio laid down in O.J.C. Nos. 8997 and 9624 of 2000 (supra) in as much as after a careful perusal of that judgment this Bench respectfully agrees with the view expressed in that judgment. It has been decided therein that :
“24. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements referred to supra both of this Court and the Apex Court, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners whose appointments in the post of lecturers in category ‘A-1’ Non-Government Educational Institutions, have been validated in consonance with the provisions of 1998 Validation Act. are entitled to the benefit of Grant-in-aid with regard to their salary cost in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the 1998 Validation Act read with Grant-in-aid Order, 1994, as more fully discussed in the preceding paragraphs.They shall also be entitled to receive arrear salary with effect from the date on which the Validation Act, 1998 came into force, i.e. 17.10.1998 till their date of approval or payment as the case may be. However, in consonance with Clause-12 of the Grant- in-aid Order, 1994, the Government has liberty to either make provision in the Budget for payment of said arrear amount and/or pass necessary orders for investment of the same in Bonds or to merge the said amount in the GPF Accounts whichever is more suitable to the Government. Before extending the benefit of 1998 Validation Act, it would be. however, open for the opp. parties-authorities to scrutinise and assure that the Non-Government Educational Institution where the petitioners are serving belongs to Category’A-I’as defined under the 1994 Orders. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.”
6. As stated above, this Court adopts the said ratio and the decision and accordingly directs the State Government and the Director, Higher Education, Orissa. to complete the entire exercise within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to make payment of the arrears and the current salaries to the petitioners in accordance with the above quoted judgment.
7. Before parting with the case, this Court wants to put on record that according to the established procedure with the State Government before a law is enacted, it passes through several preliminaries and that includes concurrence of the Government in Finance Department when there is financial implication involved in a proposed law. Therefore, there is no reason for the Government not to make budgetary provision in the subsequent years when the Act, 1998 came into force in 1998 it self. Therefore, the plea advanced by the Government regarding paucity of funds and no provision of funds made in the Budget appears to be unreasonable.
The writ applications are allowed in the manner indicated above. Issue writ to the opposite parties 1 and 2. Requisites by registered post be filed by next week by the concerned petitioner(s) in that respect which shall include copy of the writ application and the Annexures.