The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.631 of 2019 State of Odisha and Another …. Appellants Mr. D.N. Lenka, AGA -versus- Mahendra Ku. Swain and Another …. Respondents Mr. S. Jena, Advocate Mr. P.K. Rout, Advocate for R-2 COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 20.12.2024 Order No I.A. No.737 of 2019 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard. 3. Considering the grounds taken, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of cost of
Legal Reasoning
Rs.1000/- to be deposited before the Orissa High Court Bar Association Welfare Fund by 24.12.2024. 4.
Decision
I.A. disposed of. Judge (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) P.T.O. // 2 // 06. FAO No.631 of 2019 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Affidavit filed by Respondent No.1 in Court be kept in record. 2. This appeal has been filed inter alia challenging judgment dated 20.07.2018 so passed by the State Education Tribunal in GIA Case No.2666 of 2017. Vide the said judgment, claim of the private Respondent No.1 for approval of his services as against the post of Store Keeper in the Department of Zoology was allowed and private Respondent No.1 was made eligible for approval of his services under GIA Order, 1994, i.e. from the date the concerned lecturer of the department got the benefit of grant-in-aid under GIA Order, 1994. 3. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate while assailing the impugned judgement, contended that since the private Respondent No.1 was appointed on 09.12.1992, he is not eligible to receive grant-in-aid as per the policy decision of the Govt. adhering 01.06.1994 as the cutoff date for extension of Grant-in-aid under GIA Order, 1994. Since admittedly private Respondent has not completed 5 years of qualifying service on or before 01.06.1994 his date of appointment being 09.12.1992, private Respondent is not eligible to get the benefit of approval of his services under GIA Order, 1994. The Stand taken in Ground No.v, vi, vii of the appeal memo reads as follows:- “(v) The applicant being appointed on 09.12.1992 is not eligible to receive Grant-in-aid as per the policy decision Page 2 of 6 // 3 // of Govt. adhering the 01.06.1994 as the cutoff date for extension of Grant-in-Aid as per GIA Order, 1994 as she did not complete such qualifying service of 5 years on or before 01.06.1994. (vi) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of in Civil Appeal Odisha Vrs. Pravawati Padhihary No.796/2008 have been pleased to uphold the cutoff date 01.06.1994 for extension of Grant-in-aid as per GIA Order, 1994 in respect of unapproved posts in the aided non Govt. colleges. (vii) The Grant-in-Aid order, 1994 has since been repealed, the repealed provisions of the said GIA order cannot be made applicable in case of the petitioner to grant him relief under the said GIA Order, 1994.” 3.1. It is accordingly contended that since there is no dispute that the Respondent No.1 was appointed only on 09.12.1992, in view of the provisions contained under GIA Order, 1994, his services cannot be approved under GIA Order, 1994 and the Tribunal without proper appreciation allowed the claim which needs interference of this Court. 4. Mr. S. Jena, learned counsel appearing for private Respondent No.1 on the other hand contended that claiming extension of the benefit of Grant-in-aid under GIA Order, 1994, the private Respondent along with 3 other employees working in other departments of the College, approached the Tribunal by filing GIA Case No.173 of 2014. The claim of the other 3 applicants therein, save and except, claim of the present private Respondent, was allowed vide Judgement dated 05.08.2017. As because private Respondent could not produce the order of approval of the services of the concerned lecturer in the department of Zoology before the Tribunal, claim of the petitioner was Page 3 of 6 // 4 // not allowed and liberty was given to approach the Tribunal once again by enclosing the order of approval issued in favour of the concerned lecturer of the department of Zoology. 4.1. It is contended that order passed by the Tribunal in respect of the 3 other applicants working as Store Keeper in the department of Physics, Chemistry and Botany were approved and they were made eligible to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid under GIA Order, 1994 vide order issued on 05.02.2018 of the Govt. 4.2. It is contended that in terms of the liberty granted by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 05.08.2017 under GIA Case No.173 of 2014, the present Respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal once again by filing GIA Case No.2666 of 2017. While making such application, order of approval made in favour of the concerned lecturer of the department so made by the Director, Higher Education vide order dated 06.10.2007 was enclosed to the GIA applications. 4.3. Since the services of the concerned lecturer of the department has already been approved, making him entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid under GIA Order, 1994 vide order dated 06.10.2007 but w.e.f. 17.10.1998 under the Validation Act, 1998 and similar claim having been allowed by the self-same Tribunal in GIA Case No.173 of 2014, claim of the private Respondent was allowed vide Judgment dated 20.07.2018. But the Appellant on the face Page 4 of 6 // 5 // of the benefit extended in favour of the similarly situated Store Keepers of the other department pursuant to the order dated 05.08.2017 in GIA Case No.173 of 2014, the order passed in the case of Respondent No.1 is under challenge before this Court in the present appeal. 4.4. It is contended that since similar benefits in respect of the similarly situated Store Keepers in the departments of Physics, Chemistry and Botany has been extended with the benefit of grant-in-aid under GIA Order, 1994 vide order dated 05.02.2018 and the applicant being similarly situated and working in the department of Zoology, there was no occasion on the part of the appellants to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal in the present GIA Case. It is accordingly contended that the appeal so filed is liable for dismissal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the present Respondent No.1 along with 3 other similarly situated Store Keepers working in various department of the College, approached the Tribunal initially in GIA Case No.173 of 2014. Claim of the 3 other applicants working as Store Keeper in the department of Physics, Chemistry and Botany was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 05.08.2017. The order passed in respect of those 3 Store Keepers was complied, with approval of their services vide order dated 05.02.2018 of the Govt. in the department of Higher Education. Vide the said order, services of all the 3 Page 5 of 6 // 6 // Store Keeper working in the department of Physics, Chemistry and Botany were approved under GIA Order, 1994. 5.1. The claim of the present private Respondent No.1 was not allowed in the GIA Case No.173 of 2014 as the private Respondent No.1 could not produce the order of approval of the concerned Lecturer of the department at the relevant point of time. But as found from the affidavit filed today in Court, services of the lecturer in Zoology has been approved under the Validation Act and he has been made eligible to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid w.e.f. 17.10.1998 under GIA Order, 1994. Since services of similarly situated Store Keeper working in the department of Physics, Chemistry and Botany pursuant to the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in GIA case No.173 of 2014 has already been approved by the Govt. vide order dated 05.02.2018 and the private Respondent being similarly situated, he is also eligible and entitled to get the benefit of the judgment passed in his case by the Tribunal. 5.2. Therefore, the challenge made by the appellants to the said judgment, as per the considered view of this Court is not entertainable. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and dismiss the appeal. 6. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Judge (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Dec-2024 16:29:45 Page 6 of 6