The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.534 of 2018 Dr. Bairagi Ch. Panda …. Appellant Mr.N. Jena, Adv. appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Respondents Mr. S. K. Samal, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 04.04.2024 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dtd.16.04.2018 so passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short Tribunal) in GIA Case No.276 of 2013. Vide the said order, the claim of the appellant to get the benefit of grant-in-aid @ 1/3rd on completion of five years of service w.e.f. 03.07.1988 was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that when the College became eligible to get the benefit of grant-in-aid, Government-Opposite Party No.1 vide its // 2 // communication dtd.27.08.1996 under Annexure-8 held the post of Lecturer in Physics admissible w.e.f., the academic sessions 1983-84. Since the appellant was admittedly appointed as against the post of Lecturer in Physics on 03.07.1983, he became eligible to receive 1/3rd grant on completion of five years of continuous service which falls due on 03.07.1988. 4.1. But on the face of the recommendation made under Annexure-8, while approving the services of the appellant vide order dtd.27.08.1996, appellant was extended with the benefit of 1/3rd grant w.e.f. 01.06.1989. The appellant claiming extension of the benefit of grant-in-aid @ 1/3 rd w.e.f. 03.07.1988 approached the Tribunal in GIA Case No.276 of 2013. The Tribunal vide its impugned judgment rejected the claim inter alia on the ground that even though five year qualifying period ended on 03.07.1988 but the appellant is eligible to get the benefit from the next academic sessions i.e., w.e.f. 01.06.1989. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that similar issue was before this Court in FAO No.703 of 2018 and so also FAO No.69 of 2015. In FAO No.69 of 2015 when the Tribunal allowed the benefit of 1/3rd grant-in-aid on completion of five years of qualifying service, the State challenged the same before this Court. But this Court vide order dtd.16.03.2023 while confirming the order of the Tribunal, only interfered with regard to the grant of benefit of UGC scale of pay. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 4.3. It is also contended that the order passed in FAO No.69 of 2015 was followed by this Court in its order dtd.22.02.2024 in FAO No.703 of 2018. 4.4. Making all the submissions, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in view of the order passed by this Court in FAO No.703 of 2018 and so also FAO No.69 of 2015, the appellant is eligible to get the benefit of 1/3rd grant w.e.f. 03.07.1988 on completion of five years of qualifying service in place of 01.06.1989. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State though does not dispute the view of this Court in FAO No.703 of 2018 and so also FAO No.69 of 2015, but contended that even though appellant was allowed the benefit of 1/3rd grant w.e.f. 01.06.1989 vide office order dtd.27.08.1996 of Respondent No.1, but for the first time the appellant claiming extension of the benefit on completion of five years of qualifying service approached the Tribunal in the year 2013 by filing GIA Case No.276 of 2013. 5.1. It is contended that since the appellant after being extended with the benefit vide order dtd.27.08.1996 did not raise any objection till he approached the Tribunal in the year 2013, the claim of the appellant has been rightly rejected and it is also a stale claim. However, learned State Counsel does not dispute the order passed by this Court in FAO No.703 of 2018 and so also FAO No.69 of 2015. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Government Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no such period of limitation prescribed under Section-24-B of the Orissa Education Act and the only requirement is to give a prior notice to the State and thereafter to approach the Tribunal. Section-24-B of the Act reads as follows:- “24-B (1) The Tribunal shall have jurisdiction, power and authority to adjudicate all disputes and differences between the Managing Committee or, as the case may be, the Governing Body of any private educational institution and any teacher or employee of such institution of the State the said Government or any officer or authority of Government, relating to or connected with the eligibility, entitlement, payment or non-payment of grant-in-aid. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. (3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (2), the Tribunal shall if so satisfied after such inquiry as it may deem necessary that the application is a fit case for adjudication by it, admit such application, but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may summarily reject the application after recording its reasons: Provided that no application before the Tribunal seeking a claim of grant-in-aid against the State Government or any officer or authority of the said Government shall be admitted, unless the applicant has served a notice on the State Government or concerned officer or authority furnishing the details of the claim and a period of two months has expired from the date of receipt of the said notice by the State Government or, as the case may be, the concerned officer or authority. (4) The Tribunal shall not admit an application under sub- section (2), unless it is made within one year from the date of expiry of the period of two months referred to in sub-section (3). 5) The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code 5 of 1908. of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to any rules made by the Government, shall have power to regulate its own procedure. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // (6) All the proceedings before the Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial 45 of 1860, Proceedings within the meaning of sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860”. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record so also the order passed in FAO No.703 of 2018 and so also FAO No.69 of 2015, this Court is of the view that appellant is entitled to get the benefit of 1/3rd grant w.e.f. 03.07.1988 and not from 01.06.1989 which was allowed in his favour vide order dtd.27.08.1996. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the judgment dtd.16.04.2018 so passed by the State Education Tribunal in GIA Case No.273 of 20134. While quashing the same, this Court directs Respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order by allowing the benefit of 1/3rd grant w.e.f. 03.07.1988. 8. Accordingly, the FAO stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 06-Apr-2024 13:15:05 Page 5 of 5