Mr. S. Jena, AGA -versus & Ors. v. Govind Joti Chavare & Ors.

Mr. S. Jena, AGA -versus- ..... Respondents Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Adv. (for Respondent No.1) Mr. B.P. Mohanty, Adv. (for Respondent No.2) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 09.05.2024 Order No.2 I.A. No.286 of 2024

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard.

3. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees Four thousand) to be paid to the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 by 17.05.2024.

4. The I.A is disposed of. ( BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Contd….. FAO NO.119 of 2024

Heard.

The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the judgment dt.04.07.2022 So passed by the State Education Tribunal in GIA Case No.120/2020.

Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that without assigning any reason, the Tribunal set aside the earlier order passed by the Government-Appellant No.1 dt.25.07.2024 and directed for consideration of the claim of private respondent No.1 by appellant No.1.

It is contended that not only no reason has been assigned, but also the direction issued by the Tribunal to consider the claim of Respondent No.1 is also not sustainable in view of the decision of this Court reported in (2014) 118 CLT 615 ( Smt. Harjit Kaur Vs. State of Orissa & Others). This Court in para 8 & 9 of the judgment in the case of Smt. Harjit Kaur has held as follows: “8. In view of such position, if the statute vests a power with the Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes with regard to eligibility of grant-in-aid, it could not have divested the said power by passing the impugned orders. It is well settled principle of law laid down by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad V. Kind Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 and subsequently followed by the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. Jagdish Lal, (1969) 3 SCC 389 : AIR 1970 SC 7; Ramachandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by LRs. V. Govind Joti Chavare, (1975) 1 SCC 559: AIR 1975 SC 915 and Babu Veghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 422 : AIR 1999 SC 1281 and various Courts that if the statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in the same manner or not at all. 9. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal has committed a gross error apparent on the face of the record in remitting the authorities without adjudicating the same. In addition to the same in a similarly situated case, i.e. the case of Manoj Kumar Tripathy, who was appointed along with the appellants in the same institution on the same date and approached in learned Tribunal by filing G.I.A Case NO.107 of 2009 te Tribunal after due adjudication has allowed the benefit of granting G.I.A. IN his favour at the rate of 1/3rd, 2/3rd and Full from 1.6.1995, 1.6.1997 and 1.6.1997 and 1.6.1999 respectively and the appellants having stood on the same footing, should not have been discriminated. While adjudicating the case of the the matter back appellants, the learned Tribunal has not applied its mind ad without going through the same passed the impugned judgments remitting the matter back to the State Government though all the materials which have been placed in the case Manoj Kumar Tripathy have also been referred to in the case of the present appellants but the same have not been taken into consideration.

It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal to decide the issue on merit instead of directing Appellant No.1 to consider the claim of the respondent , which is not permissible.

Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the private Respondent No.1 does not dispute the proposition of law settled by this Court in the aforesaid decision.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the issue decided by this Court in the case of Smt. Harjit Kaur Vs. State of Orissa & Others, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal could not have directed Appellant No.1 to consider the case of the Respondent instead of taking final decision on the claim of private Respondent No.1.

In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash the judgment dt.04.07.2022 in G.I.A case No.120 of 2020. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to the Tribunal to decide the matter on merit by providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

Since pleading are completed, this Court directs the Tribunal to dispose of the GIA Case No.120 of 2020 by the end of 2024.

The FAO is accordingly disposed of. ( BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 15-May-2024 11:07:53