The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15651 of 2016 Sarojini Devi …. Petitioner Mr. D.K. Panda, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 11.12.2023 Order No. 16. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the communication dtd.09.02.2016 so issued by the Director Higher Education under Annexure-9. Vide the said communication, the pension papers of the Petitioner so submitted were returned with an observation that the Petitioner will not be entitled to get the annual increment so allowed in her favour on 01.01.1992 and 01.01.1993. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner while continuing as a Lecturer in Political Science in Bhadrak Women’s College, Bhadrak, she availed study leave for the period from 01.08.1991 to // 2 // 30.07.1993. After coming back from her study leave, Petitioner was not only allowed to continue in the College, but also she was sanctioned with the annual increment as due on 01.01.1992 and 01.1.1993. Not only that further increment as due and admissible was also released in her favour till the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2010. 4.1. It is contended that after retirement from service w.e.f. 31.10.2010, the pension paper of the Petitioner was submitted by the College vide Annexure-4-Series on 23.11.2010. 4.2. It is contended that after receipt of the pension paper, Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dtd.30.03.2013 under Annexure-5 requested the College to indicate as to how the Petitioner was sanctioned with the increment as due to her on 01.01.1992 and 01.01.1993, even though she did not submit the thesis after completing the study leave. 4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the aforesaid clarification as sought for by the Director was clarified by the Petitioner vide Annexure-7. Subsequently vide Annexure-8, Petitioner again made a request for sanction of the final pension in her favour. 4.4. It is contended that by keeping the matter pending and without sanctioning the pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible, save and except sanction of provisional pension in favour of the Page 2 of 7 // 3 // Petitioner, the impugned communication was issued on 09.02.2016 under Annexure-9. In the said communication, it was indicated that the Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the increment as due to her on 01.01.1992 and 01.01.1993 as the Petitioner after completing her study leave did not submit the thesis paper. While holding so, Opposite Party No.2 directed the Principal of the College to resubmit the pension paper by adjusting the increments so sanctioned in her favour on 01.01.1992 and 01.01.1993. 4.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner after coming back from her study leave, she was sanctioned with the increment as due to her on 01.01.1992 and 01.01.1993. Sanction of increment as due and admissible also continued in favour of the Petitioner till she attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2010. 4.6. It is also contended that as provided under Rule-13 of The Odisha Education (Leave of teachers and Other members of the Staff of aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1997, (in short Rules) there is no such stipulation that unless on completion of study leave, the thesis is submitted, the employee concerned will not be eligible to get the benefit of increment. 4.7. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which pension paper of the Petitioner was returned by holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to get the Page 3 of 7 // 4 // increment as allowed to her on 01.01.1992 and 01.01.1993 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.8. `It is also contended that in view of such action of Opposite Party No.2, Petitioner though has retired since 31.10.2010, but till date she has not got the pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible, save and except provisional pension so sanctioned in her favour w.e.f.01.11.2010 vide order at Annexure-6. It is accordingly contended that because of such action of the Opposite Parties, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get interest as per prevailing bank interest rate on the retiral benefits as due and admissible to the Petitioner for the entire period.
Legal Reasoning
5. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand made his submissions basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. Relying on the provisions contained under Rule- 13 of the aforesaid Rules, learned State Counsel contended that since the Petitioner after completing her study leave did not submit the thesis and such an action of the Petitioner is not in the interest of the College, Opposite Party No.2 after receipt of the pension papers initially raised an objection on 30.03.2013 vide Annexure-5. 5.1. Thereafter, on consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, it was held that the Petitioner since has not submitted the thesis, after completing her study leave, she is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of increment as sanctioned Page 4 of 7 // 5 // in her favour on 01.01.1992 and 01.01.1993. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioner did not submit the thesis and Petitioner was wrongly extended with the benefit of increment as due on 01.01.1992 and 01.01.1993, Opposite Party No.2 on coming across of such illegal action of the College, issued the impugned communication by directing the Principal to withdraw the said increment and to resubmit the pension papers for sanction of pension and other pensionary benefit as due and admissible. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by Opposite Party No.2 while issuing Annexure-9. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the Petitioner while continuing as a Lecturer in Political Science in Bhadrak Women’s’ College, Bhadrak, she was allowed to go for study leave for the period from 01.08.1991 to 30.08.1993. After coming back from her study leave Petitioner was sanctioned with the increment as due to her on 01.01.1992 and 01.01.1993. 6.1. It is also found from the record that the Petitioner thereafter was also allowed subsequent increment as due and admissible to her till she attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2010. Since the Petitioner after coming back from her study leave was sanctioned with the increment as due to her on 01.01.1992 and 01.01.1993 and further increment was also allowed Page 5 of 7 // 6 // without any objection, till she attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2010, the ground taken in the impugned communication for withdrawing the benefit after more than 23 years of sanction of the benefit is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.2. It is also found from the record that Rule-13 of the Rules nowhere contains any provision that unless and until person availing study leave submit the thesis, he/she will not be eligible to get the benefit of increment. 6.3. In any view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the action of Opposite Party No.2 in issuing Annexure-9 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, while interfering with the communication dtd.09.02.2016 under Annexure-9, this Court held that Petitioner has been rightly allowed the increment as due to her 01.01.1992 and 01.01.1993. This Court accordingly directs the Principal of the College-Opposite Party No.3 to resubmit the pension paper as was earlier submitted by the College within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite Party No.2 is directed to sanction and disburse all retiral dues as due and admissible to the Petitioner including final pension within a further period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of the pension paper. Since the Petitioner has been deprived to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits even though she has retired since 31.10.2010, this Court held the Petitioner Page 6 of 7 // 7 // entitled to get interest @ 6 % per annum on the retiral benefits as due and admissible to her all through.
Decision
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 13-Dec-2023 12:31:33 Page 7 of 7