The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.26878 of 2021 Renuka Mishra 1) State Of Odisha 2) Principal SECY., Finance Dept 3) Director, Elementary Education 4) District Education Officer 5) Block Education Officer ..... Petitioner Mr. P.K. Behera, Advocate -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Mr. H.M. Dhal, AGA
Legal Reasoning
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 08.05.2024 Order No.06 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Affidavit filed by the Petitioner in Court be kept in record. 3. Heard Mr. P.K. Behera, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue notice to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the order at Annexure-4 shall not be quashed. And after hearing both sides allow the writ petition quashing Annexure-4 directing the Opp. Parties to correctly fix the Grade Pay of Rs.4660/- w.e.f.01.01.2015 and to release the entire benefits with 18% compound interest and cost for harassing a retired lady teacher. Page 1 of 5. And any other order(s) as the Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound, remain ever pray.” 5. It is contended that claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of RACP was rejected vide impugned order dtd.16.01.2020 under Annexure-4. 5.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that claim of the Petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner availed the benefit of promotion from Level-V to Level-IV. But learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was never promoted and no order of promotion was ever communicated to her enabling her to join the promotional post in question. 5.2. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the document filed vide Annexure-A to the additional affidavit so filed today in Court. Placing reliance on the communication issued by the Govt. on 31.08.2018 under Annexure- A, wherein DEO, Cuttack was requested to verify the record and to indicate whether pursuant to the order of promotion, Petitioner was relieved from her duty to join in the promotional post and whether such order of promotion was intimated to the Petitioner. It is contended that without being provided with a report by the D.E.O., Cuttack in terms of letter dtd.31.08.2018, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-4. 5.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that in the counter affidavit filed by Opp. Party No. 5, contrary stand has been Page 2 of 5. taken in Para 7 and 9 of the counter affidavit. Stand taken in Para 7 & 9 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “7. That, it is humbly submitted that under the newly introduced the RACPS it has been provided that there shall be 3 financial upgradation counted in direct entry on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service in a single cadre in absence of promotion. In the instant case after being appointed as Level-V teachers, the petitioner promoted to level-IV teacher but she did not Joined in the promotional post and while continuing as such in Level-V she retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. In this case the petitioner had availed one promotion and therefore according to RACP Scheme he is entitled to get the 2nd and 3 RACP on completion of 20/30 years of service. xxx xxx xxx from retired service on attaining 9. That, it is humbly submitted that in the instant case after being appointed as Level-V teachers, the petitioner was promoted to level-IV teachers and while continuing as such the age of she superannuation. As per RACP Scheme an employee who continues in a post/grade without having promotion is entitled to get RACP on completion of 10/20/30 years of service. In this case the petitioner had availed one promotion and therefore according to RACP Scheme she is entitled to get the 2 and 3 RACP on completion of 20/30 years of service. In promotional hierarchy in the event of non- promotion of the petitioner to level-III, he is entitled for the Grade Pay of the promotional post which is Rs.4200/- upon completion of 30 years of service in a post or grade and as such she was allowed to get Rs.4200/- towards 2d RACP.” 5.4. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of RACP has been rejected without proper appreciation of the claim of the Petitioner and without receipt of the report in terms of the letter issued by the Govt. on 31.08.2018 vide Annexure-A to the additional affidavit. Page 3 of 5. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 5. But it is fairly contended that contrary stand has been taken in Para 7 & 9 of the counter affidavit. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the dispute involved, this Court is of the view that since no document has been provided by the Opp. Parties showing the Petitioner joined in her promotional post after being relieved from her duties, the denial of the benefit of 3rd RACP on the ground that Petitioner has availed the benefit of promotion is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also found that Opp. Party No. 1 vide his letter dtd.31.08.2018 under Annexure-A to the additional affidavit requested the D.E.O. to verify the record and to ascertain as to whether Petitioner has joined in her promotional post after being relieved from her duties. Nothing has also being indicated in the impugned order indicating therein that the report as directed was submitted by the D.E.O., Cuttack. 7.1. In view of the stand taken in Para 7 & 9 of the counter affidavit and the contents of the letter issued on 31.08.2018, this Court is of the view that the matter requires fresh adjudication by Opp. Party No. 1. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order 16.01.2020 so issued by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-4. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to the said Opp. Party to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner. While taking such a fresh decision, Opp. Party No. 1 shall take into consideration the report, if any submitted by D.E.O., Cuttack in terms of letter dtd.31.08.2018. If it is found that no such report has been submitted by the D.E.O., Opp. Party No. 1 shall take Page 4 of 5. appropriate step to get a report from the D.E.O., Cuttack in terms of letter dtd.31.08.2018 and after receipt of such report, a final decision be taken on the claim of the Petitioner. The entire exercise as directed be undertaken within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-May-2024 16:34:54 Page 5 of 5.