The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.468 of 2019 State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Appellants Mr. S. Jena, AGA Pratap Keshari Sarangi & Anr. ..... -versus- Respondents Mr. S.S. Pratap, Advocate (Respondent No. 1) THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 06.09.2024 Order No. 08 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State and Mr. S.S. Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1. 3. Appellant-State is before this Court challenging Judgment dtd.02.07.2018 so passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) in GIA Case No. 735 of 2013. Vide the said Judgment the Tribunal while disposing the matter held Respondent No. 1 entitled to get full salary cost w.e.f.17.10.1998, in terms of the provisions contained under the Validation Act, 1998 (in short Act). 4.Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Appellants raised a preliminary objection inter alia contending that in the application filed by Respondent No. 1, in GIA Case No. 735 of 2013, no such prayer was ever made to extend the benefit of full salary cost w.e.f.17.10.1998. It is accordingly contended that in absence of any such prayer, no relief could have been extended directing the Page 1 of 5. Appellants to pay full salary cost w.e.f.17.10.1998. Prayer made by Respondent No. 1 in GIA Case 735 of 2013 reads as follows:- “Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the aforesaid case may be admitted and records be called for and upon hearing the partition the order No. 7922 dated 31.01.2002 (at Annexure-2) may be modified and direction may be given to the Opposite Parties to approve the service of the applicant and to release GIA from the year 1992 (1/3rd from 01.06.1992, 2/3rd from 01.06.1994 and from full 01.06.1996) and accordingly the arrear dues be calculated and be paid to him within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Tribunal. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.” 4.1. It is contended that since no such prayer was ever made by the Respondent No. 1 to extend full salary cost w.e.f.17.10.1998 by following the provisions contained under Sec. 3(2) of the Validation Act, such a relief could not have been extended by the Tribunal while disposing the matter. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. S.S. Pratap, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 on the other hand contended that the aforesaid GIA application was filed seeking modification of order of approval issued in favour of Respondent No. 1 vide order dtd.31.01.2002 so passed by Appellant No. 2. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 contended that while approving the services of Respondent No. 1, Appellant was held entitled to get the benefit of 1/3rd grant w.e.f.01.06.1997, 2/3rd from 01.06.1999 and full salary cost from 01.06.2001, but Page 2 of 5. relying on the provisions contained under Sec. 3(2) of the Validation Act, he was allowed 1/3rd salary cost w.e.f.17.10.1998. 5.1. It is contended that since the order of approval issued vide office order dtd.31.01.2002 by holding Respondent No. 1 entitled to get 1/3rd grant w.e.f.01.06.1997, 2/3rd from 01.06.1999 and full salary cost from 01.06.2001 is not based on record taking into account the date of appointment and joining of Respondent No. 1 as 15.12.1986 and admissibility of the post taking into account the yardstick prevalent at that point of time, Appellant seeking modification of the said order filed the GIA case in question. 5.2. It is contended that taking into account the work load at relevant point of time and following the decision rendered in the case of Bilkesh Parveen Vs. State of Odisha & Anr. reported in 2007 (I) OLR 133, the Tribunal held the post to be admissible w.e.f. the Academic Session 1988-89 and by applying the principle of 3+5+7, the College being functioning in an Educationally Backward district, Respondent No. 1 was held eligible to get 1/3rd w.e.f.01.06.1990, 2/3rd from 01.06.1992 and full salary cost from 01.06.1994. However, placing reliance on the provisions contained under Sec. 3(2) of the Validation Act, Respondent No. 1 was allowed full salary cost w.e.f.17.10.1998. 5.3. It is also contended that even if applying the principle of 5+7+9 and taking into account the admissibility of the post w.e.f. the Academic Session 1988-89, by 01.06.1994 Respondent No. 1 became eligible to get 1/3rd, 2/3rd from 01.06.1996 and full salary cost from 01.06.1998. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 either way became eligible to get full salary cost w.e.f.17.10.1998, in terms of the provisions contained under the Validation Act. Page 3 of 5. 6. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1, Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that since by the time Respondent No. 1 was appointed, the yardstick governing the field was not permitting such appointment of Respondent No. 1, the post in question only became admissible from the Academic Session 1992-93. It is accordingly contended that taking into account the admissibility of the post from the Academic Session 1992-93, Respondent No. 1 as on 17.10.1998 was not eligible to get full salary cost, which was wrongly allowed that too in absence of any prayer to that effect. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Lecturer in Logic, where he joined on 15.12.1986. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Bilkesh Parveen as cited supra, it is the view of this Court that the post in question became admissible from the Academic Session 1988-89, which has been rightly taken note of by the Tribunal. Taking into account the admissibility of the post from the Academic Session 1988-89 and the provisions contained under the GIA order, 1994, it is the view of this Court that Respondent No. 1 became entitled to get 1/3rd w.e.f.01.06.1994, 2/3rd from 01.06.1996 and full salary cost from 01.06.1998. 7.1. It is also the view of this Court that by the time Validation Act came into operation, Respondent No. 1 was eligible to get full salary cost. However, since no such prayer was made by Respondent No. 1 in that regard, this Court is inclined to remit the matter to the Tribunal to decide the issue afresh by giving opportunity of haring to the Appellant and Respondent No. 1. It is open for the Page 4 of 5. Respondent No. 1 to file appropriate application seeking amendment of the prayer as made in the GIA application. The Tribunal is directed to take a fresh decision taking into account the observation made by this Court, within a period of six (6) month from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Sep-2024 11:15:28 Page 5 of 5.