Rashmi Ranjan Das and others v. State of Odisha and another) and W.P
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.468 and 465 of 2024 W.A. No.468 of 2024 1. State of Odisha, represented through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda. 2. State of Odisha, represented through the Commissioner-Cum- Secretary to Government, Department of School and Mass Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda 3. Director of Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda. 4. Director of Higher Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda. …Appellants -Versus-
Legal Reasoning
1. Ajit Kumar Mishra, aged about 54 years, Son of Sri Padma Charan Mishra, at present working as Demonstrator in Botany (2nd post), Nachuni Mahavidyalaya, At/PO-Nachuni, Dist-Khurda. …Respondent 2. Governing Body, Nachuni Mahavidyalaya, At/PO-Nachuni, Dist-Khurda, represented through its Principal-cum-Secretary. ... Proforma Respondent W.A. Nos.468 and 465 of 2024 Page 1 of 8 W.A. No.465 of 2024 1. State of Odisha, represented through its Commissioner-Cum- Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Building, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khorda. 2. Director Higher Education, Heads of Department Building, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khorda. …Appellants -Versus- Kishore Chandra Majhi, aged about 55 years, Son of Late Birabara Majhi, resident of Gurujanga, District: Khorda, at present working as Demonstrator in Physics in Kandarpur College, Kandarpur, District- Cuttack. …Respondent Advocates appeared in the case: For the Appellant Additional Government Advocate For the Respondents (W.A. No.468 of 2024) : Mr. Sougat Dash, Advocate : Mr. Bimbisar Dash, For the Respondents (W.A. No.465 of 2024) : Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO JUDGMENT 04.12.2024 W.A. Nos.468 and 465 of 2024 Page 2 of 8 Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ. A common judgment and order dated 14.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.20713 of 2016 (Rashmi Ranjan Das and others v. State of Odisha and another) and W.P.(C) No.22554 of 2017 (Kishore Chandra Majhi v. State of Odisha and Another) by a learned Single Judge of this Court is under-challenge in the present intra-court appeals, preferred by the State of Odisha. 2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioners were appointed as Demonstrators in different disciplines in Non- Government Aided Colleges against admissible posts. The State Government of Odisha had framed Odisha (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges And Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in- Aid order, 1994 (for short ‘GIA order 1994’) extending Grant-in-Aid to different Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of such colleges. Clause-8 of the GIA order, 1994 provided that no Grant-in-Aid (GIA) shall be payable to Demonstrators, Laboratory Attendant or any other post connected with laboratory work appointed on any date prior to the date of approval of a post of Lecturer in that subject. 3. Later, the Odisha Aided Educational Institution (Appointment of Lecturers Validation) Act, 1998 was enacted to validate the W.A. Nos.468 and 465 of 2024 Page 3 of 8 appointments made by the Governing Bodies of the Non-Government Aided Colleges between 1st January, 1985 to 31st December, 1992 by virtue of which services of several lecturers in such colleges stood validated. The persons, who were appointed as Demonstrators were also making demand for similar benefits. One Pradip Kumar Sutar approached the State Education Tribunal under Section 24-B of the Odisha Education Act which came to be registered as GIA Case No.20/2009. The said application was disposed of by the Tribunal with a direction to the authorities to approve appointment of Pradip Kumar Sutar. Claiming parity with said Pradip Kumar Sutar, the respondent in the present appeal intervened in FAO No 614 of 2012 which was subsequently dismissed and SLP preferred against the said order of this Court was also dismissed. 4. After dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court, the Director, Higher Education, Bhubaneswar accorded approval in favour of the said three Demonstrators by an order dated 27.12.2014 w.e.f. 17.10.2014. The respondents claiming to be similarly placed approached the authorities whereafter their services were approved with effect from the initial dates of their respective joinings by an order dated 19.06.2015 passed by the Director Higher Education, Bhubaneswar. Grant-in-Aid (GIA) was accordingly sanctioned w.e.f. W.A. Nos.468 and 465 of 2024 Page 4 of 8 the dates of their eligibility. It was clearly stipulated in the orders, approving services of the respondents and sanction of GIA that the current salary at the rate as admissible to them might be released from the current financial year but the arrears shall be calculated as per actual differential by deducting the salary received by them. 5. Thereafter, the State Government issued another order on 25.06.2015, modifying the earlier order dated 19.06.2015 to restrict the arrear claim of the respondents to the period of only three years before filing of the writ application/intervention application applying the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh reported in 2008 (8) SCC 648. Based on the said order dated 25.06.2015, Director Higher Education, Bhubaneswar issued a consequential office order on 28.12.2015. 6. Aggrieved by the letter dated 25.06.2015 and the consequential office order dated 28.12.2015 as noted above, the respondents approached this Court seeking their quashing, with a direction to the appellants to extend all financial benefits including arrears of salary in terms of the approval accorded by the Director, Higher Education, Bhubaneswar by the aforesaid order dated 19.06.2015. W.A. Nos.468 and 465 of 2024 Page 5 of 8 7. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, after having heard the parties, has set aside the orders dated 25.06.2015 and 28.12.2015 and has directed the appellants to extend to the petitioners the benefits as was initially granted. The learned Single Judge, while
Decision
allowing the writ petition, has distinguished the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) on facts. 8. Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), appearing on behalf of the appellants-State of Odisha has submitted that the respondents were not entitled to claim the differential arrears of salary for the period beyond three years before the date when, for the first time, they claimed their entitlement to receive GIA under GIA Order, 1994. Rightly applying the law laid down in case of Tarsem Singh (supra), the initial order for payment of arrears of salary dated 19.06.2015 was modified by a subsequent order dated 25.06.2015, which suffers from no illegality, he contends. He has submitted, accordingly, that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference. 9. Mr. Sougat Dash and Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents have argued that the learned Single Judge has rightly distinguished the law laid down in the case of W.A. Nos.468 and 465 of 2024 Page 6 of 8 Tarsem Singh (supra) deciding the correctness of the impugned orders dated 25.06.2015 and 28.12.2015. 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 Tarsem Singh (supra) to deny the benefits of 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). W.A. Nos.468 and 465 of 2024 Page 7 of 8 12. Thus, in our considered view, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. Chief Justice (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) (Savitri Ratho) Judge M.Panda Sisira Behera S. Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Jan-2025 15:23:03 W.A. Nos.468 and 465 of 2024 Page 8 of 8