The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(TAC) No.56 of 2016 ..... Premananda Sahoo Petitioner Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. ..... -versus- Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 07.05.2025 Order No.05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Pursuant to order dtd.16.04.2025 instruction provided by the D.E.O., Keonjhar vide his letter dtd.05.05.2025 so produced in Court be kept in record. 3. Basing on the instruction it is contended that no Hindi Teacher was posted and/or working in Govt. High School, Dhakotha during the period from 16.12.1991 to 11.01.1995. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner produced copy of letter dtd.29.11.1995 so issued by the then Inspector of Schools, Keonjhar Circle, Keonjhar and the consequential bill submitted by the School on 15.03.1996 for the period from 16.12.1991 to 11.01.1995 amounting to Rs.63,467/- in Court. The same also be kept in record.
Legal Reasoning
further contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in OJC No. 7548 of 1993, services of the Petitioner was approved w.e.f.16.12.1991 vide office order dtd.10.01.1995 under Annexure- 5 of the then Inspector of Schools, Keonjhar Circle, Keonjhar. 6.3. It is contended that even though services of the Petitioner was duly approved w.e.f.16.12.1991 and Petitioner was admittedly appointed on the said date, but his arrear entitlement for the period from 16.12.1991 to 11.01.1995 was never released. Basing on the order of approval issued under Annexure-5, Petitioner was only released with his salary from 12.01.1995. 6.4. It is contended that services of the Petitioner was duly approved w.e.f.16.12.1991 vide order under Annexure-5 and after such order of approval, the then Inspector of Schools vide letter Page 2 of 5. dtd.29.11.1995, requested the Headmaster of the School to submit the salary bill of the Petitioner for the period from 16.12.1991 to 11.01.1995. In terms of the said letter, necessary bill was also submitted by the Headmaster on 15.03.1996 by holding the Petitioner eligible to get the arrear salary to the tune of Rs.63,467/-. 6.5. It is contended that on the face of such communications issued by the Inspector on 29.11.1995 with submission of the bill by the School on 15.03.1996, the ground on which claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide order dtd.31.05.1997 under Annexure-9 is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that as per the instruction provided to this Court today, no other teacher was either posted or worked as against the post of Hindi Teacher for the period from 16.12.1991 to 11.01.1995. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioner has discharged his duty for the period from 16.12.1991 to 11.01.1995 as a Hindi Teacher with due approval of his services from the said date vide order under Annexure-5, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the salary for the said period, bill for which has been submitted by the School on 15.03.1996. 7. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit contended that since the services of the Petitioner was only approved vide order dtd.10.01.1995 under Annexure-5, he became entitled to get the benefit of salary from the date of approval and accordingly he was paid with his salary as due and admissible w.e.f.12.01.1995 in terms of the said order. Page 3 of 5. 7.1. It is also contended that in terms of such order of approval Petitioner joined in the school and in terms of said joining his salary was calculated w.e.f.12.01.1995. It is also contended that claim of the Petitioner was rejected by the then Inspector of Schools under Annexure-9, taking into account the stand taken by the Headmaster of the School that Petitioner has not discharged his duty for the period from 16.12.1991 to 11.01.1995. It is accordingly contended that since claim of the Petitioner has been rejected basing on the information provided by the School, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the said order. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Teacher vide order of appointment issued on 16.12.1991 under Annexure-1/a. As found from the record post of Hindi Teacher was duly created w.e.f.16.12.1991 vide order dtd.13.06.1992 under Annexure-2 and subsequently by the Inspector of Schools vide order dtd.18.09.1992 under Annexure-3. Basing on such creation of post w.e.f.16.12.1991, services of the Petitioner was duly approved w.e.f.16.12.1991, vide office order dtd.10.01.1995 under Annexure-5. 8.1. After such approval of his services w.e.f.16.12.1991, vide letter dtd.29.11.1995, Headmaster of the School when was directed to submit the salary bill of the Petitioner from the date of his joining in the School, the School submitted the bill for the period from 16.12.1991 to 11.01.1995 to the tune of Rs.63,467/- vide letter dtd.15.03.1996. On the face of such approval of services of the Petitioner w.e.f.16.12.1991 and the submission of the bill by the School for the period from 16.12.1991 to 11.01.1995 in terms of Page 4 of 5. letter dtd.29.11.1995 of the Inspector of Schools, the School could not have made an intimation that Petitioner has not discharged his duty for the period from 16.12.1991 to 11.01.1995. Since basing on the information provided by the School, claim of the Petitioner was rejected, on the face of the bill submitted by the self-same Headmaster on 15.03.1996 basing on letter dtd.29.11.1995, it is the view of this Court that no such stand could have been taken by the School. 8.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash office order dtd.31.05.1997 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-9. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to release the arrear entitlement of the Petitioner for the period from 16.12.1991 to 11.01.1995 taking into account the bill submitted by the School on 15.03.1996 within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Arguments
5. Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. Page 1 of 5. 6. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging office order dtd.31.03.1997 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-9. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of salary for the period from 16.12.1991 to 11.01.1995 was rejected on the ground that Petitioner never discharged his duty for the said period. 6.1. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner in terms of the decision taken by the Managing Committee in its proceeding dtd.16.12.1991 under Annexure-1, was appointed as a Hindi teacher vide order of appointment issued on 16.12.1991 under Annexure- 1/a. Pursuant to the said Petitioner joined in the school on 16.12.1991 itself. 6.2. It is also contended that post of Hindi Teacher was duly created vide order dtd.18.09.1992 under Annexure-3 w.e.f.16.12.1991. It is
Decision
9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-May-2025 18:00:36 Page 5 of 5.