The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.396 OF 2023 P.V. Satya …. Appellant Mr. S. Mohaty, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Respondents Mr. S. Jena, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 08.02.2024 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment passed by the State Education Tribunal on 16.06.2023 in GIA Case No.114 of 2021. 4. It is the case of the appellant that appellant was appointed as a Lecturer in Telgu vide order of appointment issued on 01.11.1983. As appellant’s college is a women’s college and situated in backward area, in view of the guideline issued vide Circular dtd.17.3.1983, appellant became eligible to get the benefit of 1/3rd, 2/3rd and full grant on completion of 3, 5 and 7 years of service from the date of concurrence of the College. But while approving the services of the appellant vide order dtd.13.03.1991, Opposite Party No.2 by applying the principle of 5, 7 and 9 // 2 // extended the benefit of 1/3rd in favour of the appellant w.e.f. 1.11.1988.
Legal Reasoning
4.1. It is contended that similar claim to get the benefit of the principle of 3, 5 and 7 in terms of the circular issued by the Director on 17.03.1983 was an issue before this Court in the case of Nabaghana Nanda vs. State of Orissa & Others in OJC Case No.12385 of 1997 disposed of on 10.04.2001. In the said decision, this Court held that if an employee is appointed in an women’s college or in a college situated in backward area, principle of 3, 5 and 7 is to be followed instead of the principle 5, 7 and 9. 4.2. It is contended that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Nabaghana Nanda was confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP Civil No.8936 of 2001,
Decision
disposed of on 10.12.2001. Basing on the principle decided by this Court in the case of Nabaghana Nanda, appellant when raised her claim to get the benefit of grant-in-aid basing on the principle 3, 5 and 7 and that was not considered, appellant approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.10595 of 2015. 4.3. This Court vide order dtd.19.06.2015 while disposing the writ petition directed the Department to take a decision on the Appellant’s claim to get the benefit by applying the principle 3, 5 and 7. This Court further held that if on such consideration it is found that appellant is covered under the principle of 3, 5 and 7, then financial benefit as due and admissible be released in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tarsen Singh reported in 2008 (8) SCC-648. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 4.4. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by this Court on 19.06.2015, the claim of the appellant when was rejected by the Government- Respondent No.1 vide order dtd.18.05.2020 under Annexure-6, appellant challenging the same approached the Tribunal in GIA Case No.114 of 2021. 4.5. Even though the Tribunal was provided with the decision in the case of Nabaghana Nanda but by wrong appreciation of the decision in the case of Nabaghana Nanda and by taking a plea that the appellant’s Institution being a Category-I Institution and the decision in the case of Nabaghana Nanda is in respect of Category-II institution, principle of 3, 5 and 7 cannot be made applicable to the case of the appellant. While holding so the Tribunal rejected appellant’s claim to be covered under the principle of 3, 5 and 7 vide the impugned judgment on 16.06.2023 in GIA Case No.114 of 2021. 4.6. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that principle of 3, 5 and 7 so issued by the Government in its circular dtd.17.03.1983 is applicable to all Women’s Colleges and Colleges situated in backward areas whether Category-I and Category-II. There is also no such differentiation with regard to Category-I and Category-II College with regard to eligibility to get the benefit of 3, 5 & 7. The said principle was followed by this Court in the case of Nabaghana Nanda and this Court held that if an employee is continuing in a Women’s College and/or in a College situated in backward areas, principle of 3, 5 and 7 is to be followed. But the Tribunal on a misconception and Page 3 of 6 // 4 // without proper appreciation of the principle and the decision in the case of Nabaghana Nanda rejected the claim vide the impugned judgment. It is accordingly contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and contended that since Nabaghana Nanda was working in a Category-II College and this Court allowed the claim of Nabaghana Nanda, principle of 3, 5 and 7 is to be made applicable to the employees working in a Category-II College. Since admittedly the appellant is working in a Category-I College, as defined under Para-4 of the GIA Order, 1994, the Tribunal has rightly rejected appellant’s claim and it needs no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the appellant was appointed as a Lecturer in Telgu on 01.11.1983. Following the principle of 5, 7 and 9 appellant was extended with the benefit of grant-in-aid @ 1/3rd w.e.f. 01.11.1988 vide order dtd.25.01.1991 of the Government in the erstwhile Education and Youth Services Department. It is also found that in the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Nabaghana Nanda, it was held that an employee working in Women’s College and/or in a college situated in back ward area, is entitled to get the benefit of the principle 3, 5 and 7. Appellant raised similar claim for extension of the benefit of grant-in-aid by applying the principle 3, 5 and 7 as the College is not only a Page 4 of 6 // 5 // Women’s College, but situated in backward area. When the same was not considered, appellant approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.10595 of 2015. 6.1. This Court while disposing the writ petition vide order dtd.19.06.2015 directed Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the claim of the appellant in the light of the decision in the case of Nabaghana Nanda. This Court further directs if appellant is held entitled to get the benefit basing of the principle 3, 5 and 7, then with regard to her claim to get the financial benefit, the decision in the case of Tarsen Singh is to be followed. But on the face of such direction issued by this Court, the claim of the appellant when was rejected by the Government vide order dtd.18.05.2020 under Annexure-6, the matter was challenged before the Tribunal in GIA Case No.114 of 2021. 6.2. As found from the impugned judgment, the Tribunal by holding that the appellant since was working in a Category-I College and the decision in the case of Nabaghana Nanda is in respect of a Category-II Institutions held the appellant not entitled to get the benefit of the Principle 3, 5 and 7. This Court after going through the provisions contained in the Resolution issued by the Government on 17.03.1983 and the decision in the case of Nabaghana Nanda is of the view that bereft of the continuance of an employee in Category-I or Category –II College, if an employee is working in a Women’s College and/or in a College situated in backward area, the principle 3, 5 and 7 is to be followed. But it is found that the Tribunal by misinterpreting the provisions contained in the Page 5 of 6 // 6 // Circular dtd.17.03.1983 and the decision in the case of Nabaghana Nanda rejected the claim by holding that the appellant since is working in a Category-I College, she is not eligible to get the benefit. 6.3. In view of such analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the judgment so passed by the Tribunal on 16.06.2023 in GIA Case No.114 of 2023. While quashing the said judgment, this Court while disposing the appeal directs Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to extend the benefit of grant-in-aid in favour of the appellant as due and admissible by applying the principle 3, 5 and 7. The differential salary as due and admissible till the appellant attainted the age of superannuation be released with passing of an appropriate order in that regard within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Accordingly, the FAO stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 12-Feb-2024 19:02:02 Page 6 of 6