The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.74 of 2014 Prativa Lenka @ Behera and Another …. Petitioners Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. R.N. Mishra, Advocate for O.P. Nos.4 and 5 Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 25.07.2025 18. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This review petition has been filed seeking review of order dated 21.04.2014 so passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7596 of 2014 under Annexure-1. 4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 19.04.2010 in W.P.(C) No.6803 of 2010, Review Petitioner moved the Director, Higher Education for taking a decision on her entitlements to get the benefit of Grant-in-Aid with due approval of her services as // 2 // against the post of Peon in Nayanamani Women’s College, Saradapur in the district of Bhadrak. 4.1. It is contended that in terms of the order dated 19.04.2010, petitioner moved the Director, Higher Education and on such filing of the application before the Director, notices were issued to the governing body as well as the present O.P. Nos.4 and 5 by the Director on 08.09.2011 under Annexure-7 series fixing the date to 30.09.2011. 4.2. It is contended that during pendency of the matter before the Director with regard to entitlements of the claim of the Review Petitioner vis-(cid:224)-vis O.P. Nos.4 and 5, O.P. Nos.4 and 5 without impleading the present Review Petitioner as a party to the proceeding, filed W.P.(C) No.7596 of 2014 inter alia seeking a direction on the Director, Higher Education to take a decision with regard to approval of their services and consequential release of grant-in-aid. 4.3. It is contended that basing on the materials available, this Court vide order dated 21.04.2014 while disposing the Writ Petition, directed the Director, Higher Education to pass appropriate order with regard to release of Block grant in respect of the 1st post of Peon of the College pursuant to the approval made under Annexure-5 and considering the representation under Annexure-6. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 4.4. Learned counsel for the Review petitioner contended that Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.7596 of 2014, is not in the nature of an order of approval save and except the notification issued by the Govt. in the department of Higher Education with regard to the entitlements of the eligible employees to receive block grant under GIA order, 2008. 4.5. It is contended that since during pendency of the matter before the Director, O.P. Nos.4 and 5 filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.7596 of 2014 for release of grant- in-aid in their favour without impleading the present Review Petitioner as a party to the proceeding, the said order requires a review and the said order has also been obtained without disclosing the pendency of the matter before the Director, Higher Education. It is accordingly contended that the order dated 21.04.2014 is liable for review by this Court. 5. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for O.P. Nos.4 and 5 on the other hand contended that W.P.(C) No.7596 of 2014 was filed seeking a direction on the O.P. No.2 to consider their eligibility to get the benefit of grant- in-aid taking into account the notification issued by the Govt. on 13.05.2013. 5.1. It is contended that since this Court directed for consideration of the claim of O.P. Nos.4 and 5, taking into account the representation made by the present Review Page 3 of 5 // 4 // petitioner under Annexure-6 to the said writ petition, even if Review Petitioner was not made a party to the Writ Petition, but it caused no prejudice to her. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the order dated 21.04.2014. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since the dispute is inter se in between the Review Petitioner and O.P. Nos.4 and 5, this Court can pass appropriate order considering the materials available on record. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that pursuant to order dated 19.04.2010 so passed in W.P.(C) No.6803 of 2010, petitioner when moved the Director, Higher Education for approval of her services as against the post of Peon in the College in question, vide letter dated 08.09.2011 under Annexure-7 series, not only the College but also the present O.P. Nos.4 and 5 were directed to appear before the Director for consideration of the claim of the Review Petitioner. 7.1. It is found that during pendency of the matter before the Director, W.P.(C) No.7596 of 2014 was filed and this Court taking into account the materials available in the said Writ Petition, directed O.P. No.2 to take a decision with regard to the claim of O.P. Nos.4 and 5 in terms of Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Annexure-5 therein along with the claim to the Review Petitioner made vide Annexure-6 to the said writ petition. 7.2. However, in view of the interim order passed in the Review Petition, no decision has been taken by the Director as yet basing on order dated 21.04.2014 which is not disputed. This Court accordingly while disposing the Review Petition, is only inclined to observe that claim of the Review Petitioner vis-(cid:224)-vis O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 is required to be considered taking into account the claim made by the petitioner pursuant to order dated 19.04.2010 in W.P.(C) No.6803 of 2010. This Court directs O.P. No.2 to dispose of the claim of the Review Petitioner vis-(cid:224)-vis O.P. Nos.4 and 5 in accordance with law by giving due opportunity of hearing to all of them as well as the College in question as expeditiously as possible preferably by end of November, 2025. The Review Petitioner as well as O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 are permitted to appear before the Director on 02.08.2025 along with a copy of this order. On their appearance, Director, Higher Education will proceed with the claim as directed. 8. The Review Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 5 of 5 Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 31-Jul-2025 10:52:45