The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)(OA) No.2148 of 2018 Smt. Jyotsnarani Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. M. Pati, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Jena, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 03.11.2023 Order No 18. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 30.10.2023, instruction provided by the Opp. Party No. 3 in Court be kept in record. 3. Heard Mr. M. Pati, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. This writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- <The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to release the pension and pensionary benefits including gratuity, commutation etc. taking into consideration her service w.e.f.27.06.1996 to 30.0-9.2017 by fixing her pay w.e.f.27.06.96 and release the arrear benefits by considering her representation under Annexure- 6 within a stipulated time. And the Hon’ble Tribunal is // 2 // pleased to pass such other Order/Orders as it deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of this case.= 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in OJC No. 11676 of 1999, Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 vide letter dtd.11.10.2010 under Annexure-2 took the following decision:- <I am directed to invite a reference to the letter No. 1739 dt.30.7.08 of the Deputy Secretary, Orissa Staff Selection Commission, Bhubaneswar on the subject cited above and to say that Govt. have been pleased to appoint Jyotsnarani Pradhan, C/O. Kandia Sahoo Colony, At- Yatra Padia, (Tinikonia Chhak), P.O-Choudwar, Dist- Cuttack, in the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) in the scale of pay Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with grade pay Rs.4,200/- with usual D.A. and other Allowances as admissible as per rule with immediate effect in the existing vacancy under Cuttack Circle. She may be given due seniority with retrospective effect. Therefore, you are requested to issue appointment orders favour of Smt. Jyotsnarani Pradhan accordingly under intimation to this Department early.= in 5.1. It is contended that when the decision so taken by the Govt. on 11.10.2010 was not implemented, Petitioner again approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1261(C) of 2015. The Tribunal vide order dtd.09.04.2015 disposed of the matter inter alia with the following order:- <Heard Mr. J.R. Dash, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.K. Jee, learned standing counsel, S & M.E. In this case the applicant Jyotsnarani Pradhan who was selected as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1996 was given appointment as Assistant Teacher on 11.10.2010 after a series of litigations I this Tribunal as well as before Hon’ble Page 2 of 5 // 3 // High Court of Orissa. In the appointment order as at Annexure-1 issued by respondent No. 1 it was clerly mentioned that she may be given due seniority <with retrospective effect=. The grievance of the applicant is that this order has not been implemented for which she is seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 for implementation of order. Mr. Jee, learned standing counsel has no objection if the O.A. will be disposed of at this stage. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties it becomes clear that in view of order of respondent No. 1 there is no reason why she should not be given due seniority with retrospective effect. The state respondents are, therefore, directed to implement their decision as at Annexure-1 within the period of four months from the date of issue of this order, if not implemented so far. It is however made clear that the respondents are at for appropriate the above liberty to modification/variation of stipulated period. With this order the O.A. is disposed of.= the order within application file 5.2. It is contended that in spite of such order passed by the Tribunal on 09.04.2015, the decision taken by the Govt. on 11.10.2010 was never implemented by giving due seniority to the Petitioner and in the meantime Petitioner also attained the age of superannuation and retired from her service w.e.f.30.09.2017 as reflected in Annexure-5. 5.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that due to non- implementation of the decision taken by the Govt. on 11.10.2010, Petitioner though has retired from her service w.e.f.30.09.2017 she is also yet to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. It is accordingly contended that necessary direction be issued to the State authorities to implement the decision so taken by the Department on 11.10.2010 within a stipulated time and to Page 3 of 5 // 4 // disburse the pension and other pensionary benefits also within a specific time period. 6. Though a counter affidavit has been filed by the Opp. Party No. 2 inter alia taking a different plea for non-implementation of the decision taken by the Govt. on 11.10.2010, but this Court taking into account such stand of the OPP. Party, passed an order on 30.10.2023 to the following effect:- <Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel is directed to obtain instruction from Opp. Party No. 2 with regard to further action taken after passing of order on 24.07.2017 vide Annexure-8.= In order dtd.24.07.2017 so available at Annexure-8 to the writ petition, a plea was taken that because of some legal impediment the authorities are not in a position to implement the decision so taken by the Govt. on 11.10.2010. 6.1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 30.10.2023, instruction was provided by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. From the said instruction it is found that because of pendency of some connected matters before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the decision taken by the Govt. on 11.10.2010 is yet to be implemented. But in the said instruction nothing has been indicated regarding withdrawal/supersession of the decision taken by the Govt. on 11.10.2010 and what are the cases, which are pending before the Apex Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and in view of the fact that pursuant to the order passed in OJC No. 11676 of 1999, Opp. Party No. 1 directed Opp. Party No. 3 to give due Page 4 of 5 // 5 // seniority in favour of the Petitioner with retrospective effect, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 3 to implement the decision so taken by the Govt. in its communication dt.11.10.2010 under Annexure-2 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. After such implementation of the decision, Opp. Party No. 3 will take prompt and effective steps to sanction the pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner along with the arrear entitlements, if any within a further period of three (3) months. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Nov-2023 14:58:18 Page 5 of 5