The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30075 of 2021 Sarojini Lakra …. Petitioner Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Rath, ASC Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 4) Mr. Sangram Dash, SC (Opp. Party No. 5) CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 15.02.2024 Order No 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. B. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State, Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. Sangram Dash, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party NO. 5. 3. On being directed by this Court, learned Standing Counsel, Vigilance produced copy of the letter dtd.13.02.2024 so issued by Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Rourkela Division, Rourkela. The same be kept in record. 4. Basing on the instruction learned Standing Counsel (Vigilance) contended that basing on certain allegation though Vigilance (Intelligence Report) was initiated, but since nothing was found, vigilance enquiry against the present Petitioner and two others has // 2 // been closed with a suggestion on Opp. Party No. 2 to verify the allegation and take appropriate action in the matter. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the other hand contended that while continuing as against a Trained Matric Post, vide office order dtd.20.04.2000 under Annexure-4, he was extended with the benefit of T.G. scale of pay w.e.f.21.07.1992. In terms of the said order Petitioner went on receiving the benefit of T.G. scale of pay with all increments as due and admissible. It is also contended that in terms of the order passed under Annexure-4, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of T.G. scale of pay w.e.f.21.07.1992. 5.1. However, it is contended that basing on some private complaint and letter issued by Opp. Party No. 5 on 04.05.2012 under Annexure-5, Petitioner was not allowed to draw T.G. scale of pay. Petitioner thereafter though made several representations to Opp. Party No. 2, but the same when was not considered, she approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 31874 of 2020. This Court vide order dtd.06.01.2021 when directed Opp. Party No. 2 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim, the impugned order was communicated to her vide order dtd.03.02.2021 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of TGT scale of pay has been rejected on the ground that Petitioner since has been promoted from LSES cadre to Jr. SES cadre by the Management of the School without prior permission of the competent authority, she is not eligible to get the benefit. 5.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was initially appointed as against a Trained Graduate Post, but was allowed to draw Matric CT Scale of pay, Opp. Party No. 2 on being satisfied, issued office order dtd.20.04.2000 under Page 2 of 4 // 3 // Annexure-4. In terms of the said order Petitioner was allowed TGT scale of pay w.e.f.21.07.1992. Petitioner was also allowed the increment as due and admissible in terms of order under Annexure- 4 till Annexure-5 was issued by Opp. Party No. 5 on 04.05.2012 basing on the Vigilance Intelligence Report submitted under Annexure-6. 5.3. Placing reliance on the instruction provided by the learned Standing Counsel, Vigilance, Mr. Nayak contended that since the Vigilance Proceeding has been closed against the present Petitioner with a request on the Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision after due verification of all the documents, Petitioner in terms of order at Annexure-4 is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of T.G. scale of pay. It is also contended that on the ground of pendency of Vigilance enquiry, order at Annexure-11 has also not been issued and the claim has been rejected on a different ground. Accordingly, it is contended that the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to continue with the benefit in terms of order at Annexure-4 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned order is liable for interference of this Court. 6. Mr. S. Rath, learned ASC on the other hand contended that even though Petitioner vide order under Annexure-4 was extended with the benefit of TGT scale of pay w.e.f.21.07.1992 and she got the said benefit till Annexure-5 was issued, but in fact it is now found that the order at Annexure-4 was never issued by the office of Opp. Party No. 2 at any point of time. Basing on a fraudulent order Petitioner managed to get the benefit till it was stopped after receipt of the report of the Vigilance on 04.05.2012 under Annexure-5. It is also contended that on further enquiry it was found that no such Page 3 of 4 // 4 // order was ever issued by Opp. Party No. 2 on 20.04.2000 under Annexure-4. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit as prayed for. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was allowed the benefit of TGT scale of pay w.e.f.21.07.1992 vide order dtd.20.04.2000 under Annexure-4. Petitioner was allowed further benefit in terms of the said order till Annexure-5 was issued on 04.05.2012. Considering the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, Vigilance that Opp. Party No. 2 has been requested to take a fresh decision after due verification of the order at Annexure-4, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision as to whether the order at Annexure-4 was ever issued by the office of Opp. Party No. 2, basing on which Petitioner stakes his claim. Opp. Party No. 2 is directed to take a fresh decision within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as well as the School Management. Since the impugned order has been passed on a different context, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.03.02.2021 under Annexure-11. Opp. Party No. 2 is directed to take a fresh decision in accordance with law as directed. Further continuance of the benefit in favour of the Petitioner in terms of the order at Annexure-4 shall be subject to final outcome of the decision to be taken by Opp. Party No. 2 as directed. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Sneha Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Feb-2024 16:25:07 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 4 of 4