The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.9111 of 2018 Jasoda Giri …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Das, Adv. -versus- A. State of Odisha & Others … Opp. Parties State Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 11.03.2024 13. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2.
Facts
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the order dt.13.01.2021 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-6 and consequential order passed by Opp. Party No.3 on 22.02.2021 under Annexure-7. 4. It is contended that even though Petitioner was appointed as an Asst. Teacher, Jagulai High School vide order of appointment issued on 05.08.1998 and the school became eligible to receive Block Grant w.e.f 01.01.2004, but Petitioner since was prevented from discharging her duty by the Managing Committee w.e.f 01.08.1999, the matter was assailed before the Regional Director of Education, Odisha. 4.1. Even though the appeal filed by Petitioner against such action of the Managing Committee was allowed by the Regional Director vide order dt.20.03.2004, but on the face of such order, petitioner was not allowed to discharge her duty. Thereafter, order passed on 20.03.2004 when was unilaterally reviewed vide order dt.19.10.2006 of the self-same Regional Director,
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner challenging the same, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.14416 of 2006. This Court vide judgment dt.22.04.2014 set aside the order dt.19.10.2006 and restored the order passed initially on 20.03.2004. 4.2. After disposal of the Writ Petition, Petitioner was allowed to join on 13.04.2015 and her services was approved initially vide order dt.23.04.2015 of Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-3. Vide the said order, Petitioner was allowed the benefit of grant-in-aid @40% of the initial pay + Grade Pay w.e.f 13.04.2015. Subsequently, vide order dt.02.02.2018 under Annexure-5, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of 100% Grant-in-Aid in terms of the provisions contained under Para-5 of the G.I.A Order, 2013 was rejected. 4.3. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.14416 of 2006, the effective date of approval of appointment of Petitioner though was taken as 01.01.2004 instead of 13.04.2015, but she was not extended with the benefit of 100% Block Grant w.e.f 01.04.2013, instead Petitioner w.e.f 01.04.2013 was extended with the benefit of Block Grant @60%. Petitioner aggrieved by such action of Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 while issuing under Annexures-6 & 7, is before this Court in the present Writ Petition. 4.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered Page 2 of 5 by the judgment passed by this Court on 26.04.2023 in W.P.(C ) No.14995 of 2016 (Parbati Ghadei Vs. State of Odisha & Others). 4.5. It is contended that in view of the decision rendered in the case of Parbati Ghadei, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get 100% Block Grant w.e.f 01.04.2013. It is accordingly contended that the order passed under Annexures-6 & 7 are required to be interfered with by this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate while supporting the impugned order so issued under Annexures-6 & 7 made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 5.1. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Para-6(v) of GIA Order, 2013, learned State Counsel contended that since the post in question remained vacant w.e.f 01.01.2004 till Petitioner was re-instated w.e.f 13.04.2015, petitioner cannot get the benefit of 100% block grant as she has not completed eight(8) years of regular service after his re-instatement. Para-6(v) of the GIA order,2013 is quoted hereunder. “6. Sanction of Grant-in-Aid for all categories of Institutions shall be subject to following stipulations, namely- (a ) No Grant-in-Aid shall be paid for a post, if that post is held by a person who is not qualified to be appointed in that post or does not possess the minimum qualification prescribed for that post at the time of his appointment. (b) In computing the period of eligibility for release of Grant-n-Aid at different rates, the period for which the relevant post remained vacant or was held by an under qualified/ineligible person shall be excluded. Page 3 of 5 (c) No grant-in-aid shall be payable to an institution which has not achieved such minimum enrollment as prescribed under clause(3) of section 11 of the Act in respect of High Schools and for different courses and for different areas as prescribed by Government. (d) No Grant-In-Aid shall be payable to an educationa institution which has failed to present candidates less than such minimum enrolment as examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Educatioin. (e) No Grant-in-Aid shall be payable to an eduaitonial institution located in non-scheduled areas which has filed to achieve half of the percentage of students passing such examinations for the entire Board for consecutive three years. Similarly in respect of schools located in scheduled areas the percentage of students passing the Annual & Supplementary Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Educatioin, Odisha shall not be less than half of the district average of the district in which the school is located for consecutive three years. (f) Liability of the State Government to provide Grant-in-Aid shall be limited to one person against one eligible post at any time. 6. To the submission made by learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in view of the decision in the case of Parbati Ghadei as cited (supra), the issue is no more res integra and Petitioner’s date of initial appointment having been taken as 01.01.2004 in order dt.13.01.2021 under Annexure-6, she is eligible and entitled to get 100% Block Grant w.e.f 01.04.2013 instead of 60% which has been allowed by the D.E.O vide order dt.22.02.2021 under Annexure-7. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court placing reliance on the decision in the case of Parbati Ghadei, is of the view that since the date of appointment of the Petitioner has been taken as 01.01.2004 vide order dt.13.01.2021 under Anexure-6, in view of the provisions Page 4 of 5 contained under para-5 of the GIA Order, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get 100% Block Grant w.e.f 01.01.2013. 7.1. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.13.01.2021 so issued under Annexure-6 and consequential order passed by D.E.O, Bhadrak-Opp. Party No.3 on 22.02.2021 under Annexure-7 with regard to extension of Block Grant @ 60% w.e.f 01.01.2013. While quashing that part of the order, this Court held that Petitioner entitled to get benefit of 100% Block Grant w.e.f 01.01.2013. This Court accordingly directs Opp. Party No.3 to issue a fresh order in that regard within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order and extend the benefit of differential salary as due and admissible within the aforesaid time period.
Decision
The Writ Petition 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: 12-Mar-2024 16:41:02 Page 5 of 5