The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.579 of 2020 State of Odisha & Others …. Appellants Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA -versus- Ramesh Ch. Nayak & Another …. Respondents Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Adv. for R.1 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 25.01.2024 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Perused the office note. Since notice has been duly served on Respondent No.2 and nobody has entered appearance, notice against Respondent No.2 is treated as sufficient.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 4. The present appeal has been filed by the State- Machinery challenging the judgment dtd.20.11.2019 so passed by the State Education Tribunal in GIA Case No.2990 of 2017. 4.1. Vide the said judgment, the claim of the Respondent No.1 for approval of his services as against the post of TGT Arts in Maa Mangala High School, Baruan (B) in the district of Dhenkanal was allowed with a direction to release the financial benefits under the respective GIA order governing the service condition of the Respondent No.1. // 2 // 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that as against the self-same post of TGT Arts one Sadananda Mishra has also approached the Tribunal seeking his approval in GIA Case No.01 of 2016 and the said GIA case till date is pending adjudication before the Tribunal. 4.3. It is contended that since the services of one Dillip Kumar Barik has already been approved as against the 1st post of TGT Arts and there is only one admissible post of TGT Arts for approval and there is rival claim as against the said post by the present Respondent No.1 and Sadananda Mishra, applicant in GIA Case No.1 of 2016, the Tribunal should not have allowed the claim of the Respondent No.1 prior to disposing of GIA Case No.01 of 2016. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that the order passed by the Tribunal vide judgment dtd.20.11.2019 prior to disposing GIA Case No.1 of 2016 is not just and proper and it requires interference of this Court.
Legal Reasoning
5. Mr. M.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 on the other hand contended that the present appellant was appointed as against the post of TGT Arts by the Managing Committee of the School vide order dtd.15.09.2004. In terms of the said order, Respondent No.1 joined as against the post of TGT Arts on 15.09.2004 itself. 5.1. On the other hand learned counsel while providing copy of the Petition in GIA Case No.1 of 2016 so filed by Sadananda Mishra, by way of a memo, contented that Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Sadananda Mishra was appointed as against the post of TGT Arts as admitted by him in his GIA application on 30.12.2007 with the date of joining on 31.12.2007. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that since the applicant in GIA Case No.1 of 2016 was appointed subsequent to the appointment of present Respondent No.1, the services of the present Respondent No.1 needs to be considered ahead of Sadananda Mishra. The Tribunal taking into account the date of appointment of present Respondent No.1 while allowing the claim, directed the State-authorities to approve his services for the purpose of release of grant-in-aid. 5.3. It is also contended that in the GIA case so filed by Respondent No.1, the Managing Committee duly appeared and filed his written statement. The stand taken by the Managing Committee in Para-(V) of the written statement is reproduced under:- “(V) That in reply to Para-13 to 15, of the GIA Case, it is humbly submitted that after reinstatement of applicant in his former post of Asst. Teacher (T.G.T Arts) of our School, he has been discharging his duties but without any remuneration as because in the meantime, the services of the applicant has not been approved. The approval is still awaited from the ends of the office of the educational authorities. The moment, approval will be accorded then the applicant shall be eligible to receive all his admissible dues as block grant like others. The post held by the applicant is not in dispute and the same is coming within the staffing pattern as a second trained graduate teacher of our School. The Opp.Party No.4, has no grievance against the prayer made by the applicant for approval of his service as Asst. Teacher (TGT Arts) and for release of block grant taking into consideration is date of appointment and joining so also reinstatement and present continuance in our School as second senior most teacher next to the H.M I/C. The Opp. Party No.4, while not disputed the prayer for release of block grant in favour of the applicant also undertakes to make necessary correspondence as and when it will be necessary or directed by the authorities considering the undisputed facts of suffering of the present Page 3 of 5 // 4 // applicant who has been discharging his duties regularly in our School without his entitled benefits of grant-in-aid”. 5.4. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel accordingly contended that since the present Respondent No.1 was appointed earlier than the applicant in GIA Case No.1 of 2016 as against the post of TGT Arts and services of one Dillip Kumar Barik has already been approved as against the 1st post, the services of the Respondent No.1 in terms of the order of the Tribunal was required to be upheld. The plea taken by the appellants that GIA Case No.1 of 2016 since is pending adjudication, the Tribunal should not have passed the judgment in the case of Respondent No.1 is not acceptable. It is accordingly contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is not required to be interfered with. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the Respondent No.1 was appointed as against the post of TGT Arts vide order of appointment issued by the Managing Committee of Maa Mangal High School, Baruan (B) in the district of Dhenkanal on 15.09.2004. Pursuant to the said order Respondent No.1 joined as against the post of TGT Arts on 15.09.2004. As found from the pleadings made in GIA Case No.1 of 2016, Sadananda Mishra himself admits to have been appointed vide order dtd.30.12.2007, where he joined on 31.12.2007. Since Respondent No.1 has admittedly joined as against the post of TGT Arts ahead of Sadananda Misrha, his claim as per the considered view of this Court has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal. The apprehension Page 4 of 5 // 5 // of the State that the State will face difficulty if GIA Case No.1 of 2016 will be allowed has got no basis. 6.1. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment so passed by the Tribunal in GIA Case No.01 of 2016. While dismissing the appeal, this Court observes that the State Counsel as well as the counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 shall produce this copy of this order before the Tribunal in GIA Case No.1 of 2016 within a period of seven (7) days from the date of receipt of this order for information of the Tribunal. Copy of the written statement filed by the Managing Committee in GIA Case No.3390 of 2017, copy of the application filed by Sadananda Mishra in GIA Case No.1 of 2016 so produced by Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 by way of a memo be kept in record. 7. Accordingly, the FAO stands dismissed. Subrat (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-Feb-2024 11:40:31 Page 5 of 5