The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 3013 of 2024 Haricharan Patel & Ors. ..... State of Odisha & Ors. ..... -versus- Petitioners Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 27.03.2025 Order No. 05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the office order dtd.27.08.2021 so issued by the Govt.-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-7 and consequential order passed by Opposite Party No.3 vide order dtd.29.01.2024 under Annexure-6. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that Petitioners though were Matric C.T. Teachers, but taking into account the fact that they have acquired the B.Ed. qualification, benefits of RACP & MACP, on completion of 10, 20 & 30 years of service in the shape of Promotional Grade Pay was allowed in their favour vide order dtd.23.06.2021 of Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-2 & 5. 4.1. It is contended that after being extended with the benefit of RACP/MACP in the shape of Promotional Grade Pay vide order dtd.23.06.2021 under Annexure-2 & 5, the same was cancelled by Opposite Party No.3 vide order dtd.29.01.2024 under Annexure-6 Page 1 of 5. basing on the order passed by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 on 27.08.2021 under Annexure-7. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that since Petitioners on being found eligible were allowed with the benefit of RACP & MACP vide order dtd.23.06.2021 under Annexure-2 & 5, the same could not have been cancelled suo-motu without following the principle of natural justice. 4.3. It is contended that in view of the impugned order, Petitioners are seriously prejudiced as the benefit extended was cancelled unilaterally by Opposite Party No.3 vide order under Annexure-6 basing on the order passed by the Government –Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-7. 4.4. It is contended that since principle of natural justice was never followed prior to passing of the impugned orders under Annexures-6 & 7, the same are not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision in the case of State Bank of India And Others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., (2023) 6 SCC 1. 4.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Agarwal in Para- 41 & 42 has held as follows:- “41. In State Orissa v. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269], a two-Judge Bench Orissa v. Binapani Dei [State of of of this Court held that every authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action has a duty to give a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This Court further held that an administrative action which involves civil consequences must be made consistent with the rules of natural justice : (AIR p. 1271, para 9) Page 2 of 5. “9. … The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed : it need not be shown to be super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of the significance of a decision in any particular case.” importance transcends law and thereof 42. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] , a seven-Judge Bench of this Court held that any person prejudicially affected by a decision of the authority entailing civil consequences must be given an opportunity of being heard. This has been reiterated in a catena of decisions of this Court.” 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.1 while supporting the impugned order contended that after extension of the benefit of promotional grade pay vide order dtd.23.06.2021 under Annexure-2 & 5, when Finance Department advised the Government that such a benefit is not applicable to Matric C.T. Teachers having B.Ed. qualifications, Government- Opposite Party No.1 passed an order dtd.27.08.2021 under Annexure-7 holding therein that MCT Teachers having B.Ed. qualification are not eligible to get the benefit of RACP/MACP in the Page 3 of 5. shape of Promotional Grade Pay. Basing on the said order passed by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-7, Opposite Party No.3 revoked the order passed by him on 23.06.2021 under Annexure-2 & 5 vide the impugned order dtd.29.01.2024 under Annexure-6. 5.1. It is contended that since Finance Department regretted the sanction of the benefit in favour of the Petitioners, which was sanctioned vide order dtd.23.06.2021, the same has been rightly withdrawn vide the impugned order issued under Annexures-6 & 7. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioners were extended with the benefit of RACP/MACP in the shape of Promotional Grade Pay vide order dtd.23.06.2021 under Annexure-2 & 5. As found that benefit was withdrawn by Opposite Party No.3 vide order dtd.29.01.2024 under Annexure-6 basing on the order passed by the Government on 27.08.2021 under Annexure-7. Since no document has been enclosed to the counter affidavit inter alia showing that prior to such cancellation of the benefit, Petitioners were given due opportunity of hearing, placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, this Court is of the view that such order of cancellation could not have been issued without providing an opportunity of hearing. 6.1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash office order dtd.27.08.2021 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-7 and consequential order passed by Opposite Party No. 3 on 29.01.2024 under Annexure-6. While quashing both the orders, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh Page 4 of 5. decision with regard to sustainability of the order dtd.23.06.2021 so issued by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-2 & 5. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner No.1. Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. Till a fresh decision is taken, interim order passed by this Court on 09.02.2024 shall continue. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Apr-2025 16:30:03 Page 5 of 5.