The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16786 of 2022 Simantika Das …. Petitioner Dr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA Mr. P.M. Pattajoshi, Advocate for University CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 27.01.2025 18. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition and issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to: 1. Re-fix the salary of the late father of the petitioner under 6th Plan UGC Pay Scale at Rs.2575/- , i.e. the immediate higher slab of his total salary under 5th Plan UGC Scale as on 1986, which was Rs.2507/-. 2. Accord the late father of the petitioner the benefit of increment from the date of his obtaining the Post Graduate Degree on 10.02.1987 (as per the Order of this Hon’ble Court dated 27.01.2021 in W.P.(C) No.38076 of 2020.)” // 2 // 4. It is contended that pay fixation as due to the deceased employee since was never made during his life time, the present Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the University on the other hand contended that making similar prayer, petitioner’s mother had earlier approached this Court by filing OJC No.4953 of 2002. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.03.2017 inter alia with the following directions:- “In terms of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 and 4 to re-fix pay of late husband of petitioner as per Annexure-12 and if the petitioner is yet to receive any further arrears of her late husband, same should be paid, if it is found that all the arrears etc. have already been received by the petitioner or yet to receive more, than the family pension, if any, be re-fixed on re-fixation of pay of her late husband and be disbursed to petitioner.” 5.1. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 27.03.2017, claim of the deceased employee so raised by the petitioner’s mother was considered and it was found that the deceased employee has got all his benefits, save and except a sum of Rs.6515/- towards life time Family Pension and the same was intimated by the University vide Letter No.5590 dated 31.03.2018. 5.2. It is contended that without challenging the communication dated 31.03.2018 wherein it has been intimated that the deceased employee is not eligible and entitled to get any further re-fixation of his pay and other Page 2 of 5 // 3 // entitlements, a fresh Writ Petition was filed by the present petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38076 of 2020. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.01.2021 inter alia directing the University to take a decision on the claim made by the present petitioner vide Annexure-18 to the said Writ Petition. 5.3. It is contended that similar claim made by the petitioner’s mother was earlier considered with due intimation of the result to the petitioner vide letter dated 31.03.2018 and the same was never challenged. But without challenging that petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.38076 of 2020 with similar prayer. Pursuant to the order passed on 27.01.2021 in W.P.(C) No.38076 of 2020, petitioner’s claim was found baseless and a speaking order was passed in that regard on 02.08.2021. But with similar prayer the present writ petition has been filed once again without challenging the communication dated 02.08.2021, though enclosed as Annexure-2. 6. To the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the University, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that communication dated 31.03.2018 so issued was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.38076 of 2020 and the said document was also enclosed as Annexure-20 to the said writ petition. Similarly, communication dated 02.08.2021 is also enclosed as Annexure-2 in the present writ petition. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that seeking re-fixation of the pay of the deceased employee and to release all retiral benefits, petitioner’s mother was before this Court in OJC No.4953 of 2002. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 27.03.2017 with a direction on the University to re-fix the pay of the deceased employee and on such re-fixation, if it is found that petitioner’s mother is eligible to get any further benefit, the same be released in terms of the order dated 27.03.2017. The University vide letter dated 31.03.2018 held that the deceased employee has got all the benefit, save and except a sum of Rs.6515/- towards life time Family Pension. 7.1. On the face of such communication being made by the University on 31.03.2018, the present petitioner again approached this Court with similar prayer as made by her mother in OJC No.4953 of 2002 in W.P.(C) No.38076 of 2020. Even though communication dated 31.03.2018 was annexed as Annexure-20. But the said communication was never challenged while filing the Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.38076 of 2020. 7.2. Similarly, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 27.01.2021, in W.P.(C) No.38076 of 2020 claim of the petitioner was again considered and disposed of vide order dated 02.08.2021 under Annexure-2. But no challenge has been made to such disposal of the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // petitioner’s claim in the present writ petition. Since similar claim made by the petitioner’s mother after being considered and disposed of vide letter dated 31.03.2018 was never assailed by the petitioner while filing W.P.(C) No.38076 of 2020 and similar claim made in W.P.(C) No.38076 of 2020 was considered and disposed of vide order dated 02.08.2021 under Annexure-2 is also not under challenge, prayer of similar nature made in the present writ petition is not entertainable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition with the prayer as made. It is open for the petitioner to assail the communication dated 31.03.2018 and 02.08.2021 so issued by the University if the petitioner so likes. 8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Feb-2025 14:36:02 Page 5 of 5