The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.C(OAC) Nos.2903 of 2014, WPC(OAC) No.1437 of 2011, WPC(OAC) Nos.2797, 2798, 2799, 2904 of 2014 Padala Venu …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
Order No ORDER 15.03.2023 13. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner along with Mr. D.N. Rath and Mr. N.N. Satapathy, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.07.2013 under Annexure-7 and consequential order passed under Annexure-10 by the District Education Officer, Paralakhemundi, Dist- Gajapati. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that while continuing as Sikhya Karmi, the petitioners were all retrenched from their work. Accordingly, they approached the Tribunal in a batch of Original Applications in O.A. No.1961 (C) of 1999 and batch. // 2 // The Tribunal in its order dated 12.12.2000 under Annexure-2 while disposing the matters passed the following order:- “All these Original Applications filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 are regarding the absorption in regular posts of Primary School Teachers of Sikshya Karmi in bilingual schools in the district of Gajapati. When they were not absorbed in the post of Primary School Teachers on the contrary, they were retrenched from service by order dated 24.06.1999 (annexure-5 of O.A. No.1883(C)/99) consequent upon abolition of the scheme of Sikshya Karmy with effect from 03.01.1996 and pursuant to the instruction of the Director, Elementary Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in his letter No.12673 dated 11.06.99 (Annexure-6 of O.A. No.1961(C)/99), they filed these Original Applications. 2. At the time of admission it was directed that if the services of the applicants were being utilized in teaching in sanctioned posts and taking classes like regular teachers and no substitutes have been posted in their places till 31.7.1999, then their status-quo as on that day be maintained till 20.8.1999. The said interim order has been extended from time to time. According to the learned counsel Sri C.A. Rao. On the basis of the interim orders, the applicants are still continuing and getting their pay. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 11. After the issue of these instructions, there remains hardly any difficulty in the matter of absorption of erstwhile Sikshyakarmis in regular to posts of Primary School observance of principles of reservation as embodied in the O.R.V. Act, 1975 and the O.R.V. Rules, 1976. teachers subject In 12. the state the premises we direct respondents especially respondent No.3, to take steps to absorb the applicant including the applicant in O.A. No.1089(C)/99 in the post of Primary School teachers against which they were earlier engaged as Sikshayakarmis or in any other available vacancies duly observing reservations principles in the holder district within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If considered absolutely necessary, the applicants who have not passed the Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Oriya language test, they be given two more chances to acquire the said qualification. If after making sincere efforts in this behalf, they fail to so qualify, they may not be retrenched but allowed to continue in service in bilingual schools after relaxing the said requirement. For the period from the date of their retrenchment till regular absorption as primary school teachers, if they did not work, they shall not get any wages.” 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contended that though the Tribunal in its order dated 12.12.2000 clearly directed for absorption of the petitioners as Primary School Teachers but instead of absorbing the petitioners as regular Primary School Teachers with continuity of service Government-Opposite Party No.1 passed the order of reinstatement by holding the same to be prospective in nature. It is contended that the order passed under Annexure-9 is not in the spirit of the order passed by the Tribunal, where the Tribunal has directed for absorption the petitioners as Primary School Teachers and also by holding that for the period from the date of their retrenchment till their regular absorption, they shall not be paid any wages. The order passed by the Tribunal otherwise means that for the period from the date of retrenchment till their absorption the petitioners will not get their wages but other benefits as due and admissible is to be extended in favour of the petitioners. Learned Senior Counsel contended that because of such nature of order passed under Annexure-9, the petitioners were disentitled to get the benefit of service continuity and accordingly the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 5. Mr. Satapathy, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken by Opposite Parties in the Counter. It is contended that since the Tribunal in its order under Annexure-2 never passed a clear direction as to how the break period will be taken into consideration, Government-Opposite Party No.1 passed the order of re-instatement by holding the same to be prospective in nature. Accordingly, it is contended that since the order passed by the Tribunal has been implemented by re-instating the petitioners, no further claim is entertainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record and more particularly the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-2, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal while disposing the matters clearly directed the Opposite Parties to absorb the petitioner as Primary School Teachers. The Tribunal also held that for the period from the date of retrenchment till their regular absorption as Primary School Teachers, the petitioners will not get their wages. It is the view of this Court that the direction of the Tribunal otherwise means that the petitioners should be absorbed as Regular Primary School Teacher and the break period i.e. from the date of their retrenchment till such absorption though they will not be entitled to get their wages but the break period is to be treated as service for other purposes. But the Opposite Party No.1 as per the considered view of this Court has not passed the order at Annexure-9 in terms Page 4 of 5 // 5 // of the order passed by the Tribunal in Annexure-2. Therefore, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to pass a fresh order by modifying the order at Annexure-9. 6.1. It is directed that while passing such a fresh order the true intent and spirit of the order passed by the Tribunal on 12.12.2000 under Annexure-2 shall be taken into consideration. Such a fresh order shall be passed by the O.P. No.1 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. 8. Registry is directed to attach photocopy of this order in all connected cases. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Page 5 of 5