Authority: Orissa High Court, Cuttack (Bench of Hon'ble Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chittaranjan Dash)

Order Date: 09 November 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Saroj Chandra Behera, a Trained Graduate Teacher appointed on 2 September 1980 at Aeronautics DAV High School (ADAV High School), Sunabeda, Koraput; Respondents – Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL), Aeronautics Education Society (AES), and others.
  • Background: ADAV High School was established in 1968 by HAL, fully financed and administered by HAL. In 1974 the Government of Odisha granted full aid for staff salaries, making the school an aided educational institution under Section 3(b) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969. HAL later constituted the Aeronautics Education Society to manage the school. In 1993 HAL sought to take over full financial and administrative responsibility, and the State Government, by communication dated 5 May 1995, permitted HAL to manage the school on the condition that no further grant‑in‑aid would be claimed.
  • Appellant’s Grievances: Behera alleged that after HAL’s takeover, the school failed to extend revised pay scales, dearness allowance (DA), and other service benefits applicable to HAL or government employees. He also claimed that the retirement age should be 60 years (as for HAL and aided institutions) rather than the 58 years stipulated by the Society, and that he was denied a grade pay of Rs 4,600 and conveyance allowance of Rs 400 per month.
  • Relief Sought in Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No. 26434 of 2013): (1) Grant revised pay scales from 1 Jan 1996 and 1 Jan 2006 with differential arrears; (2) Allow continuation of service up to age 60; (3) Grant DA at rates applicable to State, Central Government and HAL employees; (4) Any other appropriate orders.
  • Lower Court Decision (14 Sept 2022): The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellant’s claim was barred by delay, waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel. The judge observed that the appellant, along with other staff, had voluntarily consented to the withdrawal of grant‑in‑aid and to management by AES, had accepted the Society’s service conditions for nearly two decades, and had participated in a meeting on 17 July 2012 that fixed pay, DA, gratuity, leave and retirement age at 58 years.
  • Appellant’s Submissions on Appeal: Argued that the transfer of management to AES was unlawful because the State’s consent was given only for HAL’s management, that the appellant never consented to serve under AES, that the Single Judge misapplied Supreme Court precedents, and that the delay doctrine should not bar his claim.
  • Respondents’ Submissions: Contended that 22 of 25 employees, including the appellant, had expressly opted for management by AES in 1995, that the appellant enjoyed numerous benefits (housing, medical, LTC, PF) under AES, and that his long‑standing acceptance of the Society’s terms barred any later claim for parity with HAL or government employees.

Final Outcome

  • The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s findings, holding that the appellant’s prolonged acquiescence, waiver, and estoppel precluded any relief. It reiterated that the appellant was governed by the Society’s service conditions, which stipulated retirement at 58 years and a DA rate one step below the State rate. No statutory or contractual right to Government/HAL pay scales, DA parity, or extension of service to age 60 was established.
  • The appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs was made. The interim order, if any, passed earlier was vacated.

Topics: Legal Judgment, Employment Service Conditions, Government‑Managed Educational Institution