The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22899 of 2020 Jagabandhu Pradhan …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 17.03.2023 Order No 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.R.K. Samal, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following relief:- “(i) Admit the writ application. (ii) Call for the record. (iii) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the Clause-2 and 3 of the Government letter dated 31.03.2018 and the subsequent letter issued by opposite party no.2 dated 01.11.2019 with regard to non-grant of all financial benefit for the period from 21.06.2014 to 24.05.2018 insofar as the present petitioner is concerned under Annexure-8 and 9 shall not be modified/quashed. (iv) If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the rule absolute and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/writs direction/directions quashing/modifying the Clause-2 and 3 of the Government letter dated 31.03.2018 and the subsequent issued by Opp.Party No.2 dated 01.11.2019 with regard to non-grant of all financial benefit for the period from 21.06.2014 to 24.05.2018 insofar as letter // 2 // the present petitioner is concerned under Annexure-9 and 9. (v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs direction/directions directing the opposite parties to release the admitted salary in favour of the present petitioner for the period from 21.06.2014 to 24.05.2018 and further the petitioner may be entitled to receive all consequential and other service benefit as due and admissible within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court. And/or (v) order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice”. other pass any 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that while the Petitioner was continuing as Head Pandit in Pravakar Sanskrit Vidyalaya, At.Chandrasekharpur, P.O. Ramchandrapur in the District of Jajpur, the recognition of the institution was withdrawn from the academic sessions 2014-15. Subsequently the Petitioner and other teaching staffs of the Institution were absorbed in other Institutions vide order at Annexure-8 dated 31.03.2018. But while so absorbing the Petitioner vide order at Annexure-8, it is indicated that the Petitioner will not get the benefit of salary for the interim period in question. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though vide order at Annexure-6, the recognition of the Institution was withdrawn, but in the said order it was indicated that the students who have taken admission till the academic sessions 2014-15 will be allowed to continue in that Institution and the concerned Institutions will be continued to be recognized till the last batch of the students appear the examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education. 4.2. It is contended that in terms of the said order at Annexure-6, the students admitted up to the academic Page 2 of 5 // 3 // sessions 2014-15, continued in the School and they appeared the examination finally during the academic sessions 2017-18. It is accordingly contended that since in terms of the order at Annexure-6, the Petitioner was allowed to continue as a Teacher in the Institution by providing teaching to the students, the Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of salary, till the last batch of the students appeared the examination during the academic sessions 2017-18. But while readjusting the Petitioner vide order at Annexure-8, a condition was imposed that the Petitioner cannot claim any financial benefit for the period, he has not performed his duty. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the said condition so imposed under Annexure-8. 4.3. Mr. Rath, also contended that seeking extension of the financial benefit till the last batch of the student appeared the examination during the academic sessions 2017-18, though the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-11, but no decision has been taken on the same. It is contended that since in terms of the order at Annexure-6, the Petitioner continued to be a teacher of the Institution in question till the last batch of the students appeared in the examination during the academic sessions 2017-18, the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to get the benefit of salary for his continuance in the School with discharging of his duty. 5. Mr. Samal, learned Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, it is contended that since the recognition of the Institution was withdrawn vide order at Annexure-6 and the Petitioner subsequently adjusted Page 3 of 5 // 4 // vide order at Annexure-8 with the condition that he will not claim any financial benefit for the period he remained out of employment, the claim so made by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is not entertainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that even though the recognition of the Institution in question was withdrawn vide order dated 20.06.2014 under Annexure-6, but in the said order, it has been clearly indicated that the students admitted in the School till the academic sessions 2014-15 will be allowed to continue as if the Institution continued to be recognized one till the last batch of students appeared in the examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education. The said condition contained in the order at Annexure-6, otherwise means that the students admitted up to the sessions 2014-15 will get the teaching in the School till they appear the examination conducted by the Board. 6.1. Since students admitted till the academic sessions 2014-15 appeared the examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education during the academic sessions 2017-18, as per the considered view of this Court, the stipulation contained in Annexure-8 that the Petitioner will not claim any financial benefit for the period he did not perform his duty is not sustainable. Therefore, this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on Annexure-11, taking into account the observation made by this Court hereinabove. Such a decision shall be taken within a period of three Page 4 of 5 // 5 // months from the date of receipt of this order. However, it is observed that on such consideration the benefit if any will be extended, shall not be treated as a precedent in respect of any similarly situated teachers. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
Decision
Writ Petition stands disposed of. Judge (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat Page 5 of 5