The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 13116 of 2020 Santilata Sahoo ..... State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Petitioner Mr. B. Satapathy, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
Decision
ORDER 12.02.2025 Order No. 08 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. B. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging office order dtd.22.05.2014 so issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-1. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of salary for the period she was kept out of employment from 27.05.2000 to 17.04.2002 has been rejected on the basis of no work no pay principle. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was appointed as an Additional Section Teacher and at the relevant point of time since Petitioner was an untrained hand and her service was not approved, she approached this Court by filing OJC No. 8796 of 1996. This Court vide order dtd.27.06.1997 and placing reliance on the decision in the case of Bibekananda Das Vs. State of Odisha & Ors., when directed Opp. Parties to approve the services of the Page 1 of 4. Petitioner as Sectional Teacher, in terms of the said order, services of the Petitioner was approved vide office order dtd.16.05.1998 under Annexure-2 and further order passed on 15.07.1999 under Annexure- 3. But while so continuing Petitioner was illegally disengaged from her services w.e.f.27.05.2000. 4.1. However, subsequently by following the order passed in OJC No. 8796 of 1996, Petitioner was reappointed vide office order dtd.12.04.2002 under Annexure-5. It is contended that since basing on the order passed in OJC No. 8796 of 1996 services of the Petitioner was approved vide order under Annexure-2 & 3, there was no occasion to disengage the Petitioner from her services w.e.f.27.05.2000 and suo moto recalling the same with passing of order dtd.12.04.2002 under Annexure-5. It is contended that since because of the illegal action of the Opp. Parties Petitioner remained out of employment for the period from 27.05.2000 to 17.04.2002, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the salary for the said period and principle of no work no pay cannot be made applicable. 4.2. It is also contended that similarly situated persons so disengaged were extended with the benefit vide order dtd.31.12.2011 and consequential order dtd.10.03.2011 of the then Inspector of Schools, Puri Circle vide order under Annexure-6 & 7. It is accordingly contended that since persons similarly situated have got the benefit as claimed by the Petitioner, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim vide impugned order dtd.22.05.2014 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand placing reliance on the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 3 contended that since order of approval of the Petitioner was a conditional one and Petitioner failed to fulfil that condition, Page 2 of 4. Petitioner was disengaged from her services w.e.f.27.05.2000. However, Petitioner was again allowed to continue in terms of the order dtd.12.04.2002, where Petitioner joined on 17.04.2002. Since Petitioner for the period from 27.05.2000 to 17.04.2002 has not discharged her duty, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of salary for the said period. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order has been rightly passed and it requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as an Additional Section Teacher though an untrained hand. When her services was not approved, Petitioner approached this Court by filing OJC No. 8796 of 1996. This Court placing reliance on the decision in the case of Bibekananda Das Vs. State of Odisha (OJC No. 1012 of 1996) allowed the Petitioner’s claim and in terms of the said order passed by this Court on 27.06.1997, services of the Petitioner was approved vide order dtd.16.05.1998 under Annexure-2 and further order passed on 15.07.1999 under Annexure- 3. 6.1. However, on the face of such order of approval, Petitioner was disengaged w.e.f.27.05.2000 and the said order was withdrawn by allowing the Petitioner to continue vide office order dtd.12.04.2002 under Annexure-5. Since from the impugned order it is quite apparent that Petitioner in terms of the order of approval has passed the B.Ed. within two (2) years, as per the considered view of this Court, Petitioner should not have been disengaged w.e.f.27.05.2000 and subsequently reinstated vide office order dtd.12.04.2002 under Annexure-5. Not only that as found from the orders available under Page 3 of 4. Annexure-6 & 7 persons similarly situated have got the benefit as prayed for by the Petitioner. This Court after going through the impugned order finds that relevancy and effect of the orders available under Annexure-6 & 7 and so also the order passed by this Court in OJC No. 8796 of 1996 has not been taken into consideration by Opp. Party No. 1 while rejecting the Petitioner’s claim. 6.2. In view of such analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.22.05.2014 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-1. While quashing the said order, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit as prayed for. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. However, it is observed that while taking such a decision, relevancy and effects of the orders available at Annexure-6 & 7 and so also the order passed in OJC No. 8796 of 1996 and consequential order of approval issued under Annexure-2 & 3 be taken into consideration in its proper perspective. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Feb-2025 13:56:59 Page 4 of 4.