Bijaya Kishore Mishra v. State of Odisha and others disposed of on
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No. 131 of 2024 [Arising out of W.P.(C) No. 15445 of 2018 : Bijaya Kishore Mishra v. State of Odisha and others disposed of on 21.04.2023] State of Odisha and others …. Appellants
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv. – Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, Additional Government Advocate -versus- Bijaya Kishore Mishra another and …. Respondents Represented By Adv. – CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Decision
ORDER 17.07.2025 Order No. 04. 1. The matter is listed today on consent of both the parties in Special List before this bench on being mentioned by the learned counsel for the respondent inasmuch as Writ Appeal No.2854 of 2023 was heard and disposed of today i.e. 17.07.2025, that involves identical question of law and similar issues. The appeal W.A. No.2854 of 2023 was heard at length and was dismissed. 2. As we take up the present appeal the only difference that is apparent is that the dismissed Writ Appeal No. 2854 of 2023 was remanded by the apex Court to be considered by this Court on Page 1 of 5 merits by setting aside the order of the coordinate Bench dated 20.12.2023 in dismissing the said Writ Appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the Writ Appeal. In the SLP(C) No. 13725 of 2024 and the batch of SLPs it was observed by the apex Court that the High Court ought to have condoned delay of 184 days, 223 days, 243 days, 223 days and 231 days. In view of the order of the apex Court delay of 260 days in filing the present Writ Appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 418 of 2024 for condonation of delay filed by the appellant is allowed and disposed of. 3. For convenience of reference the order dismissing the appeal is reproduced herein: “2.The writ appeal brings into question the common order(s) dated 21.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 15099 of 2018 and batch of similar writ petitions passed by the learned Single Judge granting benefit of arrear claim of differential salary as their entitlement from the date as indicated in their respective orders of approval of grant-in-aid issued by the Government under the provisions of Odisha Education Act/other statutes and rules. 3. The learned Single Judge relied on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 20713 of 2016 and 22554 of 2017 decided by a Single Bench dated 14.03.2023 which in turn had relied on decision of a Single Bench of this Court in Swarnalata Sahoo v. State of Orissa [W.P.(C) No. 19445 of 2016]. In Swarnalata Sahoo it was held that ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh : (2008) 8 SCC 648 is not applicable as far as payment of arrear salaries to the writ petitioners is concerned. Tarsem Singh (supra) had imposed a limitation on the claim that it can be given for past three years when remain unpaid. Page 2 of 5 4. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the writ appellate court by filing writ appeal(s). The coordinate bench considering the writ appeals thought it appropriate not to condone the delay of 184 days in filing the appeal and dismissed the writ appeal(s) by order dated 20.12.2023, delay not being condoned. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the apex Court and the apex Court in SLP(C) No. 13725 of 2024 and the batch of SLPs set aside the order(s) passed by the coordinate bench dated 20.12.2023 observing that “the High Court ought to have condoned delay of 184 days, 223 days, 243 days, 223 days and 231 days” and remanded all the appeals to be considered on merit. 5. In the above background, the appeal has come to be listed before this Bench for consideration. The learned counsel for the appearing parties were heard in extenso. It is agreed at the bar that similar question of law as indicated above regarding applicability of the Tarsem Singh (supra) to the fact situation of the extant case, was considered by coordinate Bench in Writ Appeal nos.468 and 465 of 2024 and the coordinate Bench held that principles of Tarsem Singh the respondents in the said writ appeals are entitled for the arrear salaries/benefit of grant-in-aid with effect from initial dates of their joining. (supra) are not applicable and Paragraphs 10 & 11 of the Writ Appeal no. 468 and 465 of 2024 decided on 04.12.2024 are reproduced herein : “10. We have carefully gone through the pleadings on record as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. Indisputably, the services of the respondents have been approved with effect from the initial dates of their joining. Accordingly, they are entitled to the benefits of Grant-in-Aid with effect from the initial dates of their joining. The appellants, however, have applied the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Page 3 of 5 to deny the benefits of Tarsem Singh (supra) differential arrears of salary. 11. In our opinion, it was not open for the appellants to deny the benefit of full differential arrears since they could not have entered into the question of delay or laches on the part of the respondents in making their claims. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that it was not open for the appellants to issue subsequent impugned order in supersession of the earlier order applying the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Tarsem Singh (supra).” 6. It is also accepted by learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents that the Supreme Court in its order dated 08.01.2024 disposing of SLP(C) No. 9531 of 2024: State of Orissa and another v. Dhiren Kumar Sahoo, arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 08.01.2024 in WA No.3217 of 2023 (State of Orissa and others v. Dhiren Kumar Sahoo) considered a similar question, that is regarding payment of financial benefit after conferring the benefit of grant-in-aid upon similarly situated teachers from the date of conferment and it was held that the benefit cannot be restricted for a period of three years on the ground of financial concurrence to be obtained from the Finance Department. It was further held by the apex Court in Dhiren Kumar (supra) that the benefit that was conferred, cannot be taken away, without adhering to the principles of natural justice for the affected category i.e. to deny the benefit for the past period beyond three years by applying Tarsem Singh (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the order passed by the apex Court in Dhiren Kumar (supra) are reproduced herein : “2. The counsel would argue that although Government concurrence was given for grants in aid, in the posts in the non-Government Aided Colleges, in the communication dated 14.05.2015 (Annexure-P/4), but the arrears accruing thereof were made subject to the concurrence of the Finance Department. The counsel then reads the next communication dated 25.06.2015 (Annexure P/5) to argue that the arrears Page 4 of 5 should be restricted for a period of three years for the concerned beneficiary. The payment of arrears if any, is made subject to the concurrence of the Finance Department and therefore the State should not be burdened with full arrears without time restriction. 3. However, the Government communication dated 14.05.2015 would suggest this was after obtaining concurrence of all concerned including the Finance Department. In the circumstances, to restrict the claim for a period of three years on the cited ground of financial concurrence to be obtained from the Finance Department, is not found tenable. This is also because the benefit that was conferred, cannot be taken away, without adhering to the principles of natural justice for the affected category.” the above circumstances, the appeal that is 7. In dismissed.” 4. As far as merits of the appeal are concerned we have already dealt with the same in detail in our order dated 17.07.2025 in W.A. No. 2854 of 2023 as quoted above. By applying the reasons as indicated in the said order, the present appeal is dismissed. 5. The order of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 15445 of 2018 disposed of on 21.04.2023 shall be complied with within eight weeks. Costs made easy. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Jul-2025 18:51:05 Gs/Radha Judge Page 5 of 5