Benudhar Das v. State of Orissa & Others disposed of on
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 1523 of 2024 [Arising out of W.P.(C) No. 22556 of 2017 : Benudhar Das v. State of Orissa & Others disposed of on 05.05.2023] State of Odisha & another …. Appellants Represented By Adv. – Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA -versus- Benudhar Das & another …. Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv.– Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. 1. I.A. No. 3939 of 2024
Decision
ORDER 20.08.2025 1. I.A. has been filed with a prayer for dispensing with filing of certified copy of the impugned order. 2. Since it is an intra court appeal, the records of the writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No. 22556 of 2017 along with the orders passed therein is available and accordingly the I.A. is favoured. Prayer for dispensing with filing of certified copy is allowed. I.A. is disposed of. I.A. No. 3940 of 2024 3. I.A. has been filed after brooking a delay of 370 days in filing the appeal. Page 1 of 6 4. Learned AGA contended that the copy of the judgment was received in their office on 23.05.2023 and the matter could not be monitored in a timely manner. On 20.01.2024 grounds of appeal was prepared. However, after scrutiny on 28.05.2024, the appeal was filed on 29.05.2024. 5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that two years have already passed since disposal of the writ application on 05.05.2023. State has dillydallied the matter and dragged the petitioner to prolonged litigation. 6. In a matter the apex Court allowed SLP filed by State by setting aside order passed by coordinate Bench rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by State. The apex Court condoned the delay and remanded the matter for consideration on merit. In the SLP(C) No. 13725 of 2024 and the batch of SLPs it was observed by the apex Court that the High Court ought to have condoned delay of 184 days, 223 days, 243 days, 223 days and 231 days. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and considering grounds stated explaining delay and also applying the observations of the Apex Court delay of 362 days in filing the present Writ Appeal is condoned. 7. The delay of 370 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The I.A. is favoured and disposed of. Page 2 of 6 W.A. No. 1523 of 2024 8. Appellant-State has filed appeal challenging the order dated 05.05.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 22556 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge. 9. It is agreed at the Bar, by the learned AGA that the matter was earlier considered by a coordinate Bench in Writ Appeals No. 2854 of 2023 and No. 1350 of 2024 disposed of on 17.07.2025. 10. As we take up the present appeal the only difference that is apparent is that the dismissed Writ Appeal No. 2854 of 2023 was remanded by the apex Court to be considered by this Court on merits. The Apex Court set aside the order of the coordinate Bench dated 20.12.2023 dismissing the Writ Appeal by not condoning the delay in filing the Appeal. 11. For convenience of reference the order dated 17.07.2025 dismissing the appeal, W.A. No. 2854 of 2023 is reproduced herein: “2.The writ appeal brings into question the common order(s) dated 21.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 15099 of 2018 and batch of similar writ petitions passed by the learned Single Judge granting benefit of arrear claim of differential salary as their entitlement from the date as indicated in their respective orders of approval of grant- in-aid issued by the Government under the provisions of Odisha Education Act/other statutes and rules. 3. The learned Single Judge relied on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 20713 of 2016 and 22554 of 2017 decided by a Single Bench dated 14.03.2023 which in turn had relied on decision of a Single Bench of this Court in Swarnalata Sahoo v. State of Orissa [W.P.(C) No. 19445 of 2016]. In Swarnalata Sahoo it was held that ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh : (2008) 8 SCC 648 is not applicable as far as payment of arrear salaries to the writ Page 3 of 6 petitioners is concerned. Tarsem Singh (supra) had imposed a limitation on the claim that it can be given for past three years when remain unpaid. 4. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the writ appellate court by filing writ appeal(s). The coordinate bench considering the writ appeals thought it appropriate not to condone the delay of 184 days in filing the appeal and dismissed the writ appeal(s) by order dated 20.12.2023, delay not being condoned. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the apex Court and the apex Court in SLP(C) No. 13725 of 2024 and the batch of SLPs set aside the order(s) passed by the coordinate bench dated 20.12.2023 observing that “the High Court ought to have condoned delay of 184 days, 223 days, 243 days, 223 days and 231 days” and remanded all the appeals to be considered on merit. 5. In the above background, the appeal has come to be listed before this Bench for consideration. The learned counsel for the appearing parties were heard in extenso. It is agreed at the bar that similar question of law as indicated above regarding applicability of the Tarsem Singh (supra) to the fact situation of the extant case, was considered by coordinate Bench in Writ Appeal nos.468 and 465 of 2024 and the coordinate Bench held that principles of Tarsem Singh (supra) are not applicable and the respondents in the said writ appeals are entitled for the arrear salaries/benefit of grant-in-aid with effect from initial dates of their joining. Paragraphs 10 & 11 of the Writ Appeal no. 468 and 465 of 2024 decided on 04.12.2024 are reproduced herein : “10. We have carefully gone through the pleadings on record as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. Indisputably, the services of the respondents have been approved with effect from the initial dates of their joining. Accordingly, Page 4 of 6 they are entitled to the benefits of Grant-in-Aid with effect from the initial dates of their joining. The appellants, however, have applied the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Tarsem Singh (supra) to deny the benefits of differential arrears of salary. 11. In our opinion, it was not open for the appellants to deny the benefit of full differential arrears since they could not have entered into the question of delay or laches on the part of the respondents in making their claims. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that it was not open for the appellants to issue subsequent impugned order in supersession of the earlier order applying the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Tarsem Singh (supra).” 6. It is also accepted by learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents that the Supreme Court in its order dated 08.01.2024 disposing of SLP(C) No. 9531 of 2024: State of Orissa and another v. Dhiren Kumar Sahoo, arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 08.01.2024 in WA No.3217 of 2023 (State of Orissa and others v. Dhiren Kumar Sahoo) considered a similar question, that is regarding payment of financial benefit after conferring the benefit of grant-in-aid upon similarly situated teachers from the date of conferment and it was held that the benefit cannot be restricted for a period of three years on the ground of financial concurrence to be obtained from the Finance Department. It was further held by the apex Court in Dhiren Kumar (supra) that the benefit that was conferred, cannot be taken away, without adhering to the principles of natural justice for the affected category i.e. to deny the benefit for the past period beyond three years by applying Tarsem Singh (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the order passed by the apex Court in Dhiren Kumar (supra) are reproduced herein : “2. The counsel would argue that although Government concurrence was given for grants in aid, in the posts in the non-Government Aided Colleges, in the communication dated 14.05.2015 (Annexure-P/4), but the arrears accruing thereof were made subject to the concurrence of the Finance Department. The counsel then reads the next Page 5 of 6 communication dated 25.06.2015 (Annexure P/5) to argue that the arrears should be restricted for a period of three years for the concerned beneficiary. The payment of arrears if any, is made subject to the concurrence of the Finance Department and therefore the State should not be burdened with full arrears without time restriction. 3. However, the Government communication dated 14.05.2015 would suggest that this was after obtaining concurrence of all concerned including the Finance Department. In the circumstances, to restrict the claim for a period of three years on the cited ground of financial concurrence to be obtained from the Finance Department, is not found tenable. This is also because the benefit that was conferred, cannot be taken away, without adhering to the principles of natural justice for the affected category.” 7. In the above circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.” 12. As far as merits of the appeal are concerned this Court has already dealt with the same in detail in order dated 17.07.2025 in W.A. No. 2854 of 2023 as quoted above. By applying the reasons as indicated in the said order, the present appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, W.P.(C) No.22556 of 2023 disposed of on 05.05.2023 shall be complied with within eight weeks. Costs made easy. (Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) dutta Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 25-Aug-2025 21:01:13 Page 6 of 6