The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.602 of 2019 State of Orissa & Others …. Appellants State Counsel -versus- Promodini Pattnaik & Others …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. D.N. Rath, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 11.01.2024 Order No 8. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos.6(a) and 6(b) by filing his vakalatnama in Court today. The same be kept on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment dt.02.01.2019 so passed by the Tribunal in GIA Case No.519 of 2014. Vide the said order, the Tribunal allowed the claim of private respondents by allowing the benefit notionally w.e.f 01.06.1994 with release of financial benefit w.e.f 22.09.2004. 4.1. It is the case of the appellants that since the private respondent moved the application after repealing of the GIA Order, 2004 which was notified on 05.02.2004, the application of the private Respondents to get the benefit of // 2 // GIA Order 1994 was not entertainable before the Tribunal. It is also contended that the claim of private respondents was also allowed contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati. 4.2. Mr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents on the other hand contended that the School in question was notified to get the benefit of Grant in aid under GIA Order, 2004. But challenging the decision of the Govt. to extend the benefit of grant-in-aid under GIA Order, 2004, some of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the school approached the Tribunal in GIA Case No.369 of 2011. The claim made by similarly situated employees of the school so made in G.I.A Case No.369 of 2011 was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment dt.30.10.2012. Not only that, the order passed by the tribunal was also confirmed by this Court in FAO No.94 of 2016. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioners are similarly situated as like the applicants in GIA Case No.369 of 2011 and belong to the same School, the Tribunal considering all those aspects allowed the claim vide judgment dt.02.01.2019. It is accordingly contended that the ratio decided in the case of Anup Senapati is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In support of his submission, Mr. Rath relied on an order passed by this Court on 12.04.2023 in FAO No.949 of 2019. This Court on a similar issue has held as follows in para-6. <6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that in terms of the notification of the Govt. in the Department of School and Mass Education issued on 22.09.2007 under Annexure-B/3, the services of the present appellants and // 3 // in reflected other teaching and nonteaching staff of the school in question were approved by making them entitled to receive grant-in- aid by way of block grant w.e.f 1.6.1994 vide order dated 03.10.2008 of the Respondent No.3 under Annexure-8 to the G.I.A case. It is found that the services of the petitioners in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 was also approved vide the said order dated 03.10.2008. Since the petitioners in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 were allowed the benefit of grant-in-aid as per Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 25.02.2013 and that too in modification of the Notification dated 22.09.2007 as the communication dated 24.06.2017 under Annexure-11 to the G.I.A case, as per considered view of this Court, the stand taken by the Tribunal that the Petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of G.I.A Order, 1994 as it is already repealed w.e.f 05.02.2004 is not sustainable in the eye of law. By the time G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 was filed, G.I.A Order,1994 was also a repealed one. Even though Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati has held that no further claim under G.I.A Order, 1994 is entertainable as the said order is a repealed one, but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the benefit extended in favour of similarly situated teaching and non-teaching staffs of the school, this Court is of the view that the appellants are eligible and entitled to get the benefit as has been extended in favour of the Petitioners in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011. While holding so, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order dated 17.09.2019 so passed in G.I.A Case No.347 of 2018 under Annexure-4 to the appeal and quash the same. This Court accordingly directs Respondent Nos.1,2 & 3 to extend the benefit as has been extended in favour of the petitioners in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.= 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the materials available on record it is found that the school in question though was notified to get the benefit of grant in aid under GIA Order 2004, but some of the teaching and non-teaching staff approached the Tribunal claiming extension of the benefits under GIA order, 1994 in GIA Case No.369 of 2011. The claim of the applicants in the said GIA Case when was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment dt.30.10.2012, the same was challenged by the State machineries before this Court by filing FAO No. 94 of 2016. This Court vide order dt.18.4.2016 dismissed the // 4 // appeal and thereby confirming the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also found that the order passed by the Tribunal on 30.10.2012 was implemented after dismissal of the SLP so filed by the State in Civil Appeal No.2483 of 2017. 5.1. In view of such position, which is apparent on the face of the record, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the judgment dt.02.01.2019 which is impugned in the present appeal. Accordingly this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss the FAO. (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: 17-Jan-2024 16:23:06