Srikanta Sahoo v. State of Orissa & Ors), decision of this Court reported in
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 11475 of 2020 Kalpataru Bhahma …. Petitioner Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 13.09.2023 Order No 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dtd.17.02.2020 so passed by the D.E.O., Cuttack-Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-9. 4. It is contended that Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in OJC No. 228 of 2001 with a prayer to quash the order dtd.18.12.2000 so passed by the self same Opp. Party No. 3, wherein the Petitioner was denied the benefit of Grant-in-aid as he was holding the post of 4th Peon. This Court after hearing the Parties in detail while quashing the order dtd.18.12.2000, remitted the matter to Opp. Party No. 3 for a fresh consideration and passing of a reasoned and speaking order by affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The relevant portion of the order // 2 // dtd.27.02.2019 passed by this Court so reflected in Para 11 is quoted hereunder:- <11. In such view of the matter, the order dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Inspector of Schools-opposite party no. 3 in Annexure-10 deserves to be quashed and accordingly the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Inspector of Schools-opposite party no.3 for its reconsideration and passing a reasoned and speaking order by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.= 4.1. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 27.02.2019, Opp. Party No. 3 though allowed the Petitioner to participate in the hearing of the matter, but he did not take into consideration the claim of the Petitioner that his claim is covered by the decisions of this Court so passed vide Judgment dtd.21.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 13960 of 2013 (Srikanta Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa & Ors), decision of this Court reported in 1999 (II) OLR 176 (Deepak Kumar Sahoo Vs. State of Odisha) as well as Judgment dtd.05.07.2022 passed in W.P.C.(TAC) No. 35 of 2014 (Raj Kishore Pradhan Vs. State of Odisha) and the decision reported in Volume 88 (1999) CLT 75 (Kamalakanta Kar Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.). 4.2. This Court taking into account the contention raised that even though Petitioner produced the Judgment passed on 21.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 13960 of 2013 and the other decisions in course of hearing on 17.01.2020 and Opp. Party No. 3 did not accept the same, passed an order on 27.07.2023 to the following effect:- Page 2 of 4 // 3 // <2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. In course of hearing, learned State Counsel contended that subsequent to stoppage of the salary of the Petitioner from March, 1999 in terms of the office order dated 01.06.2013 so available at Annexure-D/3 to the counter affidavit, the Petitioner was released with grant-in-aid as due and admissible. 4. It is also contended that such order passed by the D.E.O., Cuttack on 01.06.2013 was passed on the consent of the Petitioner. Though the said fact is reflected in Para- 4 of the impugned order but no such consent of the petitioner has been enclosed to the counter affidavit. 5. As requested by Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate, list this matter on 11th of August, 2023. Mr. Mishra, is directed to produce the consent so given by the Petitioner on the next date.= 4.3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 27.07.2023, an affidavit was filed by the Petitioner in Court today. In Para 2 of the said affidavit it has been clearly submitted that the Petitioner in course of hearing of the matter on 17.01.2023 though produced a copy of the Judgment passed by this Court on 21.11.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 13960 of 2013 and other decisions as cited supra, but the same was not accepted by the Opp. Party No. 3. It is further contended that the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit as claimed is squarely covered by the aforesaid 4 (four) decisions. Since Opp. Party No. 3 did not accept the decisions relied on by the Petitioner and produced in course of hearing on 17.01.2020, the order has gone against him. It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party No. 3 be directed to take a fresh decision by considering the relevancy and effect of the above noted decisions so relied on by the Petitioner. Page 3 of 4 // 4 // 5. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand though supported the impugned order, but fairly contended that the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No. 3 to take a fresh decision and Petitioner be directed to produce copies of the Judgments so relied on by him in support of his case. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that since the Petitioner was not allowed to produce the Judgment supporting his case in course of hearing on 17.01.2020 and the impugned order was passed on 17.02.2020 by rejecting his claim, this Court on that ground only is inclined to quash the impugned order and remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 3 to take a fresh decision by giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. While quashing the order dtd.17.02.2020 under Anenxure-9, remits the matter for a fresh decision to be taken by Opp. Party No. 3. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Opp. Party No. 3 on 25.09.2023 along with a copy of this order. Opp. Party No. 3 on receipt of the order is directed to intimate the Petitioner the date of hearing of the matter. On the date of hearing Petitioner shall produce the Judgments so relied on by him as cited (supra) with due acknowledgement of the Opp. Party No. 3. Opp. Party No. 3 is directed to take a fresh decision within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of appearance of the Petitioner. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Sep-2023 13:19:52 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 4 of 4