The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.656 of 2020 State of Odisha & Another …. Appellants -versus- Mr. S. Rath ASC Rabindranath Dash & Another …. Respondents Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate for R.1 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 22.02.2024 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Facts
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. State is the Appellant challenging the order dtd.04.03.2020 so passed by the State Education Tribunal in GIA Case No.99 of 2019. Vide the said order, the Tribunal set aside Clause-3 of the order dtd.20.07.2017 so passed by the Government in the Department of Higher Education and directed the Appellant Nos.1 and 2 herein to release the entire differential financial benefits as due to Respondent No.1 w.e.f. 01.06.1994. 4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State contended that the services of the present Respondent No.1 was initially approved vide order dtd.04.06.2010 and he became eligible to get the benefit of grant-in-aid under GIA // 2 // Order, 2009 w.e.f.01.02.2009. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 claiming benefit in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of Nabaghana Nanda vs. State of
Legal Reasoning
Odisha & Others approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.693 of 2015. 4.1. This Court vide order dtd.16.02.2015 while disposing the writ petition directed the appellant herein to examine the claim of Respondent No.1 in the light of the judgment in the case of Nabaghana Nanda. This Court further held that in the event the appointment of Respondent No.1 is approved in terms of the decision in the case of Nabaghana Nanda all the financial benefits shall be given to him following such approval. 4.2. It is contended that in consideration of the order passed by this Court on 16.02.2015, Respondent No.1 vide order dtd.20.07.2017 though was held eligible to receive the benefit of grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.06.1994, @ 1/3rd, 2/3rd w.e.f. 1.6.1996 and full salary cost w.e.f., 01.06.1998, but vide Clause-3 of the said order, a condition was imposed that the financial benefit towards differential amount consequent upon approval of the post shall be paid prospectively i.e. from the date of order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.693 of 2015. The order passed by the Government on 20.07.2017 was followed vide order dtd.29.07.2017 of the Director Higher Education –Appellant No.2 vide Clause-4. Respondent No.1 being aggrieved by Page 2 of 6 // 3 // the stipulation contained in Clause-3 of
Decision
order dtd.20.07.2017 as well as Clause-4 of order dtd.29.07.2017, approached the Tribunal in GIA Case No.99 of 2019. The Tribunal vide judgment dtd.04.03.2020 allowed the claim by directing the appellant Nos.1 and 2 to release the differential amount as due and admissible w.e.f. 01.06.1994. 4.3. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State contended that since the services of the Respondent No.1 was approved vide order dtd.04.06.2010 and he became eligible to receive block grant w.e.f. 01.02.2009, in consideration of the order passed by this Court, Respondent No.1 though was held eligible to get the benefit of grant-in- aid w.e.f. 01.06.1994, but since Respondent No.1 only in the year 2015 approached this Court to get the benefit, while allowing the benefit vide order dtd.20.07.2017, Appellant No.1 made the condition that the financial benefit will be extended from the date of disposal of the writ petition in W.P.(C) No.693 of 2015. The condition imposed by the Government-Appellant No.1 in order dtd.20.07.2017 was followed by the Director in its order dtd.29.07.2017. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that since the Respondent No.1 only in the year 2015 approached this Court to get the benefit of his approval in terms of the decision in the case of Nabaghana Nanda, which was allowed by the Government vide order dtd.20.07.2017, the appellant is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit from the date of his eligibility. Page 3 of 6 // 4 // But the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the order passed on 20.07.2017 and 29.07.2017, passed the impugned judgment with a direction to extend the entire differential salary w.e.f. 01.06.1994. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.5. Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 on the other hand contended that vide order dtd.04.06.2010, not only the services of the present respondent No.1 was approved under GIA Order, 2009, but also the services of the other teaching and non-teaching staff of the College was approved vide the said order and all were made eligible to get the benefit of block-grant w.e.f. 01.02.2009. But one of the employee namely Sagarika Tripathy claiming similar benefit approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.18728 of 2014. This Court vide order dtd.30.09.2014 when directed the appellants herein to consider the claim in the light of Nabaghana Nanda, the services of the Sagarika Tripathy was not only approved w.e.f. 01.06.1994 by making her eligible to get the benefit but also she was made eligible to get the differential salary as due and admissible w.e.f. 01.06.1994. Similarly another employee namely Amit Kumar Prusty, whose services was also approved vide order dtd.04.06.2010, claiming similar benefit approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.18727 of 2014. In terms of the order passed by this Court on 30.09.2014, not only the benefit of grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.06.1994 was extended, but also he was made eligible to get the Page 4 of 6 // 5 // differential salary w.e.f. 01.06.1994. Respondent No.1 though similarly situated as like Sagarika Tripathy and Amit Kumar Prusty, but while extending the benefit, Government-Opposite Party No.1 illegally and arbitrarily imposed condition vide Clause No.3 in order dtd.20.07.2017 followed by the Director vide Clause-4 of order dtd.29.07.2017. 4.6. It is contended that since similar benefit has been extended in favour of similarly situated employees of the Colleges, there is no illegality or irregularity with regard to the order passed by the Tribunal with quashing of the condition imposed under Clause-3 of order dtd.20.07.2017 read with Clause-4 of order dtd.29.07.2017. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the services of the present Respondent No.1 along with other employees of Kamala Neheru Women’s College, Bhubaneswar was approved vide order dtd.04.06.2010. The employees were made eligible to get the benefit of block grant w.e.f. 01.02.2009. But in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18728 of 2014 and 18727 of 2014 persons placed at Sl.Nos.4 & 6 of the order dtd.04.06.2010 were not only made eligible to get the benefit of grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.06.1994, but also they were made eligible to get the differential salary w.e.f. 01.06.1994. 6. Since similarly situated employees claiming similar benefits were allowed to get the differential salary w.e.f. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 01.06.1994 vide order dtd.25.05.2015 of appellant No.2, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the order passed by the Tribunal in quashing condition imposed vide Clause-3 of order dtd.17.07.2017 read with Clause-4 of order dtd.29.07.2017. Accordingly, this Court dismisses the appeal by upholding the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. The FAO stands dismissed accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 26-Feb-2024 11:28:00 Page 6 of 6