The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2596 of 2025 Subhadra Satapathy …. Petitioner Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 20.02.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- the above circumstances, “Under the petitioner, therefore humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ by directing the Opposite Parties to sanction the arrear dues of the petitioner as the lecturer in Oriya against the 1" post of Opposite Party No.3 College, such as the arrear salary of the petitioner from 17.09.1985 i.e. the date of illegal termination of the service of the petitioner till she was made to retire on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 31.01.2016, grant of increments etc., fixation of the pay of the petitioner as per the Pay Revisions provided from time to time, grant of the financial benefit as per RACP/ACP and the retirial benefits to the petitioner, such as pension, gratuity, provident fund etc. as are due and admissible to a // 2 // retired employee of an aided educational institution, within a time frame. And for this act of your kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray”. 4.
Legal Reasoning
No.2 was assailed before this Court in OJC No.3799 of 1996. This Court vide order dtd.28.10.2015 under Annexure-6, while disposing the Writ Petition passed the following order:- Page 2 of 8 // 3 // “Heard Mr.D.N.Rath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.J.K.Rath, learned Sr.Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.K.Mishra, learned Addl.Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr.S.Jena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.B.Routray, learned Sr. Counsel for opposite party no .4. The petitioner files this application seeking for a direction to opposite party nos.3 and 4 to accept her joining report pursuant to the decision taken by the Director, Higher Education, opposite party no.2 vide Annexure-8 and grant all the consequential benefits as due and admissible in accordance with law. Mr.D.N.Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, who has been initially appointed as Lecturer in Oriya under the opposite parties 3 and 4 pursuant to the order passed by the authority in Annexure-1 dated 20.8.1978, was terminated from service on 7. 9.1985. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director and the Director without following due procedure of law passed order against the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner approached this Court in OJC No. 1347 of 1995 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 27.3.1995 by setting aside the said order of the Director and directed to re-hear the matter once again by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Director, Higher Education passed the impugned order on 16.11.1995 vide An nexure-8, whereby the Director has reviewed the earlier order passed on 5.12.1994 the termination order communicated to the petitioner by the Governing Body is illegal and consequentially the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service and she should be gr anted all the benefits as due and admissible to the post. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that benefits pursuant to the impugned order in Annexure-8 having not been extended, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. It is stated that pursuant to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 25.11.2013 though the Direct or has pursued the matter, the Governing Body is not complying the same by allowing the petitioner to get the continuity in service. and observe d that Mr.A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State states that since the Director has already Page 3 of 8 // 4 // discharged his duties by disposing of the appeal, the Governing Body is to comply the same in letter and spirit and since the Governing Body has not complied the same, the Petitioner could not able to join in her post pursuant to the order passed by the Director. Mr.S. Jena, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4 states that unless the Governing Body accepts the joining report, the Principal, opposite party no.4 cannot do anything because he is only the Secretary of the Governing Body and he has no power to accept the joining report of the petitioner. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the materials available on record, it appears that the impugned order passed by the Director i n Annexure-8 has not been complied with till date by allowing the petitioner to continue in service. In that view of the matter, let the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Director and the Governing Body, who shall see that the order passed in Annexure-8 is complied with in letter and spirit. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
Arguments
It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as a Lecturer in Oriya in Kusaleswar Anchalika Mahavidyalaya vide order issued under Annexure-1, she was illegally terminated from her services by the Governing Body of the College. Appeal filed by the Petitioner against such an order when was rejected, Petitioner challenging the same approached this Court in OJC No.1347 of 1995. This Court vide order dtd.27.8.1995 while quashing the order of the rejection when remitted the matter for fresh consideration, Opposite Party No.2 passed an order on 18.11.1995 under Annexure-2 to the following effect:- “ After reviewing the earlier order passed on 05.12.94, I am inclined to dispose of the petition of Smt. termination order that Satapathy observing communicated to Smt. Satapathy by the Governing Body of Kushaleswar Anchalika Mahavidyala is illegal”. the 4.1. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by the Director under Annexure-2 when Petitioner was not allowed to join, in action on the part of Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 as well as Opposite Party
Decision
application stands disposed of. Issue urgent copy as per Rules”. 4.2. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 28.10.2015 in OJC No.3799 of 1996 Petitioner’s grievance was never considered nor she was allowed to join in the College in question. Petitioner accordingly filed Contempt Petition in CONTC No.137 of 2016. This Court in the Contempt Petition vide order dtd.26.07.2024, passed the following order:- “26.07.2024- The matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. The Court is satisfied with the allegations made in the contempt petition and the show cause reply which has been filed on behalf of the contemnors that case a Page 4 of 8 // 5 // of deliberate disobedience of the Court’s order dated 28.10.2015 passed in OJC No. 3799 of 1996 is made out. Let the contemnors-opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3 be personally present in Court on 09.08.2024 when the Court will consider initiation of contempt proceeding against them for framing charge of contempt of Court. 3. List this mater on 09.08.2024”. 4.3. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 26.07.2024, Petitioner was allowed to join on 08.08.2024 and joining report was also accepted by the Principal-cum-Secretary of the College as reflected under Annexure-9-Series. 4.4. It is however contended that by the time Petitioner was so also allowed to join, she had already attained the age of superannuation. Accordingly on the face of such acceptance of the Petitioner’s joining, Petitioner failed to get any consequential relief. 4.5. It is accordingly contented that since for the laches of the Opposite Party No.2 as well as the College-Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4, Petitioner was not allowed to join on the face of the order passed by Opposite Party No.2 on 18.11.1995 under Annexure-2 and in the meantime she also attained the age of superannuation without approval of her services and consequential release of grant-in-aid, Petitioner became an unnecessary victim of the situation. 4.6. It is accordingly contented that appropriate direction be issued to Opposite Party No.2 to approve Page 5 of 8 // 6 // the services of the Petitioner taking into account the order passed under Annexure-2 and to release her with all consequential service and financial benefits. 5. Mr. M. K. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand taking into account the nature of order passed by the Director under Annexure-2 and the order passed in OJC No.3799 of 1996 as well as the order passed on 06.09.2024 in CONTC No.137 of 2016, contended that let the Petitioner make an appropriate application before Opposite Party No.2 for consideration of her grievance. Order dtd. 06.09.2024 so passed by this Court in the Contempt Petition reads as follows:- "06.09.2024-The matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the light of the stand taken on behalf of opposite party No.2 in the compliance affidavit states this contempt application may be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to pursue her remaining grievance before the appropriate law. The contempt proceeding stands dropped with liberty as sought”. in accordance with forum that 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the dispute involved this Court finds that even though termination of the Petitioner was declared as illegal by Opposite Party No.2 vide his order dtd.18.11.1995 under Annexure-2, but Petitioner when was not allowed to join in her duty by Opposite Page 6 of 8 // 7 // Party Nos.3 & 4, the matter was carried to this Court in OJC No.3799 of 1996. 6.1. Even though notice of the Writ Petition was issued vide order dtd. 21.11.1996, but no steps was taken in allowing the Petitioner to join. Ultimately vide order dtd.28.10.2015, though Opposite Party No.2 was directed to see that the order passed by him under Annexure-2 is complied, but the same was never acted upon. 6.2. It is also found that in the Contempt Petition filed by the Petitioner in CONTC No.137 of 2016, this Court vide order dtd.26.07.2024, held the action of the Opposite Parties as contemptuous and was inclined to initiate the contempt proceeding. 6.3. It is found that on the face of such order passed by this Court on 26.07.2024, Petitioner was allowed to join on 08.08.2024 by Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4. But it is not disputed that by the time Petitioner was so allowed to join on 08.08.2024, she had already attained the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.01.2016. 6.4. Therefore, it is view of this Court due the alleged inaction on the part of Opposite Party No.2 and so also Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4, Petitioner on the face of the order passed under Annexure-2, was not allowed to Page 7 of 8 // 8 // join till she attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2016. 6.5. Therefore, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition and taking into account the order passed on 06.09.2024 in CONTC No.137 of 2016, permits the Petitioner to make an appropriate application to get the benefit of approval of her services as well as consequential release of all service and financial benefits as due to her. 6.6. It is observed that if any such application will be moved within a period of two (2) weeks hence, Opposite Party No.2 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a period of six(6) weeks thereafter. Observation made by this Court hereinabove in the present order be taken into consideration by Opposite Party No.2, while considering the claim of the Petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 25-Feb-2025 17:40:52 Page 8 of 8