The High Court
Case Details
. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO NO.949 of 2019 Surachita Jena and Others …. Appellants Mr. D.N. Rath,Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Respondents Mr. S.K. Samal, Additional Govt. Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 12.04.2023 Order No 12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 17.09.2019 passed by the State Education Tribunal (hereinafter called <The Tribunal=) in G.I.A Case No.347 of 2018. 3. The factual backdrop giving rise to filing the present appeal is that the appellants were all appointed as Assistant Teachers in Keshabananda Balika Vidyapitha at Namouza in the distirct of Kendrapara.
Legal Reasoning
3.1. It is contended that while continuing as such and in terms of the notification issued by the Government in the Department of School and Mass Education on 22.09.2007 under Annexure-B/3, the services of the present appellants along with other teaching and non- teaching staffs were approved by the Inspector of // 2 // Schools by admitting them to receive grant-in-aid by way of block grant in the pre-revised scale w.e.f 01.06.1994 under Annexure-8 to the G.I.A case. The names of the present appellants are reflected at Sl. Nos.2,3 & 4 of the order dated 03.10.2008 issued under Annexure-8 by Respondent No.3. 3.2. It is contended that being aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2008, so passed by the Respondent No.3 in admitting the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the college to receive grant-in-aid by way of block grant w.e.f 01.06.1994, some of the teaching and non- teaching staffs, whose services were approved vide the said order, approached the Tribunal in G.I.A case No.314 of 2011 claiming extension of the benefit of grant-in-aid as per G.I.A Order 1994. The claim of the petitioners in the said G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 25.02.2013 under Annexure-10. The Tribunal held the Petitioners therein entitled to get the benefit of grant- in-aid in terms of the G.I.A order 1994 w.e.f 01.06.1994. 3.3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the order passed by the Tribunal in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 though was challenged by the State-Respondents before this Court as well as before the Hon’ble Apex Court, but after becoming unsuccessful, the Government-Respondent No.1 vide its communication dated 24.06.2017 under Annexure- 11 to the G.I.A case extended the benefit in favour of Page 2 of 9 // 3 // the Petitioners in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 and by making them entitled to get the benefit of grant-in-aid w.e.f 01.06.1994 as per G.I.A Order, 1994. Notification dated 24.06.2017 vide Annexure-11 to the G.I.A case was issued by the Respondent No.1 in modification of the notification issued earlier on 22.09.2007, basing on which all the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the appellants’ school were made entitled to get the benefit of grant-in-aid in shape of Block Grant w.e.f 01.06.1994 . 3.4. It is contended that since some of the teaching and non-teaching staff being aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2008, approached the Tribunal in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 and the said claim being allowed by the Tribunal with confirmation by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court was implemented vide notification dated 24.06.2017 under Annexure-11, the appellants being similarly situated moved the Respondent No.3 on 14.07.2017 under Annexure-12 to the G.I.A case with a prayer to extend them with similar benefit. On receipt of such request, Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 21.08.2017 under Annexure-13 to the G.I.A case requested the Respondent No.2 to issue necessary instruction for consideration of the claim of the present appellants. In spite of such recommendation when nothing materialized, the present appellants approached this Court in W.P.(C ) No.16992 of 2018. This Court
Decision
disposed of the matter vide order dated 10.12.2018 and pursuant to the said order, the appellants filed G.I.A Page 3 of 9 // 4 // Case No.347 of 2018 with a prayer to extend the benefit of grant-in-aid as per Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, so extended in favour of other teaching and non- teaching staff of the school in terms of the order passed in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011. 3.5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants being similarly situated as like the appellants in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011, they are eligible and entitled to get the benefit as has been extended vide Annexure-11. But learned Tribunal without proper appreciation of the claim of the appellants and only on the ground that Grant-in-Aid order, 1994 has been repealed w.e.f 05.02.2004 as per clause-7 of the G.I.A Order, 2004, the claim of the appellants to get the the benefit of grant-in-aid as per G.I.A Order, 1994 is not entertainable. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the matter vide the impugned order dated 17.09.2019 under Annexure-4 to the appeal. 3.6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that in terms of the notification issued by the Government in the Department of School and Mass Education Department on 22.09.2007, the teaching and non-teaching staff of the appellants’ school were extended with the benefit of grant-in-aid in shape of block grant w.e.f 01.06.1994 vide order dated 03.10.2008 of the Respondent No.3 under Annexure-8 to the G.I.A. Case. Even though during the relevant time the appellants did not challenge the order allowing Page 4 of 9 // 5 // grant-in-aid in shape of block grant in terms of the order dated 03.10.2008, some of the teaching and non- teaching staff whose names are also reflected in the order dated 03.10.2008 claiming extension of the benefit of grant-in-aid as per G.I.A Order, 1994 approached the Tribunal in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated 25.3.2011 when allowed the claim by directing release of grant- in-aid in favour of the Petitioners of the said case to get grant-in-aid as per G.I.A Order 1994, the matter was challenged before this Court as well as before the Hon’ble Apex Court. After becoming unsuccessful, the State-respondents vide notification dated 24.6.2017 under Annexure-11 in modification of the earlier notification so issued on 22.09.2007 allowed the claim in favour of the Petitioners in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011. 3.7. Mr.D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the appellants contended that since in terms of the notification dated 22.09.2007, all the teaching and non-teaching staffs of the appellants school were extended with the benefit vide order under Annexure-8 and while extending the benefit in favour of the Petitioners in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011, Government decided to modify the notification dated 22.09.2007, the appellants are otherwise eligible and entitled to get similar benefit as has been extended in favour of the Petitioners in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011. But the Tribunal while considering the claim in that regard Page 5 of 9 // 6 // rejected the claim only on the ground that the G.I.A order, 1994 since has been repealed w.e.f 05.02.2004, the claim is not entertainable. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not only illegal but also discriminatory and not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that though vide notification dated 22.09.2007 under Annexure-B/3, the services of the appellants and other teaching and non- teaching staff of the school were approved by the Respondent No.3 vide order dated 03.10.2008 under Annexure-8 to the G.I.A case making them entitled to get grant-in-aid by way of block grant w.e.f 01.06.1994, the present appellants never disputed the said order and instead accepted the benefit. The Petitioners in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 though are similarly situated as like the appellants, but they challenged the order dated 03.10.2008 by filing G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 with a prayer to extend the benefit of grant-in-aid as per G.I.A Order 1994. The claim of the Petitioners in G.I.A Case 314 of 2011 having been allowed by the Tribunal and so confirmed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, they were extended with the benefit of Grant-in-Aid as per G.I.A Order 1994 vide notification dated 24.06.2017 under Annexure-11 to the G.I.A case. Only when the petitioners in GIA Case No.314 of 2011 were allowed with the benefit vide Notification dated 24.06.2017, the present appellants Page 6 of 9 // 7 // raised their claim to get similar benefit. It is contended that by the time the present appellants raised such claim since the grant-in-aid Order, 1994 was already repealed, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and another Vs. Anup Kumar Senapati 2019(19) SCC 626, the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of grant-in- aid as per G.I.A Order, 1994. It is accordingly contended that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity in refusing to entertain the claim of the appellants vide the impugned order dated 17.09.2019 in G.I.A. Case 347 of 2018. 5. I have heard Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Parties. On the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter was heard and disposed of at the stage of admission by the present order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that in terms of the notification of the Govt. in the Department of School and Mass Education issued on 22.09.2007 under Annexure-B/3, the services of the present appellants and other teaching and non- teaching staff of the school in question were approved by making them entitled to receive grant-in-aid by way of block grant w.e.f 1.6.1994 vide order dated 03.10.2008 of the Respondent No.3 under Annexure-8 Page 7 of 9 // 8 // to the G.I.A case. It is found that the services of the petitioners in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 was also approved vide the said order dated 03.10.2008. Since the petitioners in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 were allowed the benefit of grant-in-aid as per Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 25.02.2013 and that too in modification of the Notification dated 22.09.2007 as reflected in the communication dated 24.06.2017 under Annexure-11 to the G.I.A case, as per considered view of this Court, the stand taken by the Tribunal that the Petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of G.I.A Order, 1994 as it is already repealed w.e.f 05.02.2004 is not sustainable in the eye of law. By the time G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 was filed, G.I.A Order,1994 was also a repealed one. Even though Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anup Kumar Senapati has held that no further claim under G.I.A Order, 1994 is entertainable as the said order is a repealed one, but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the benefit extended in favour of similarly situated teaching and non-teaching staffs of the school, this Court is of the view that the appellants are eligible and entitled to get the benefit as has been extended in favour of the Petitioners in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011. While holding so, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order dated 17.09.2019 so passed in G.I.A Case No.347 of 2018 under Annexure-4 to the appeal and quash the same. This Court accordingly directs Respondent Nos.1,2 & 3 to extend the benefit as has Page 8 of 9 // 9 // been extended in favour of the petitioners in G.I.A Case No.314 of 2011 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The F.A.O is accordingly disposed of. sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 9 of 9