The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.C.(OAC) No. 2591 of 2014 In the matter of an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985. ……………… Bhagaban Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. J. Biswal (Advocate) For Opp. Parties : Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 19.01.2024 & Date of Judgment: 19.01.2024 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “In view of the facts stated in paragraph-6 above, the applicant prays for the following relief: a) The Original Application be admitted; b) The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 be directed to allow the applicant to join in his post and further directed to approve the appointment of applicant as against the 4th post of Section Teacher and // 2 // release all consequential service benefits in favour of the applicant from that date within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal; c) And/or pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper.” 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was appointed as 4th Section Teacher by the then validly constituted Managing Committee of Binayak Dev High School, Naiguan vide order of appointment issued on 31.08.1984, in terms of the resolution passed by the Managing Committee on dtd.31.08.1984 itself. After such appointment of the Petitioner, the Managing Committee vide letter dtd.14.12.1984 sent the proposal with details of appointment of the Petitioner to the then Inspector of Schools, Puri Circle, Puri for his approval. Inspector of Schools, Puri Circle, Puri on receipt of such proposal forward the same to the Director of Secondary Education for his approval. But it was not approved by the Director at that point of time on the ground that the 3rd Section Teacher post in respect of Class-IX(B) was not approved by them. Subsequently, Inspector of Schools approved the services of one Prasanna Kumar Das as against the Additional Section Teacher of Class-X(B) w.e.f.04.08.1984. But, thereafter when the Petitioner was not allowed to discharge his duty by the then Managing Committee w.e.f.07.09.1991, Petitioner moved the Director challenging such action of the Managing Committee in not allowing him to discharge his duty, which amount to termination. 2.1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in OJC No. 3046 of 1994, Director, Secondary Education-Opp. Party No. 2 took up the matter and passed the following order on 24.10.1998 under Annexure-5: “Heard the Advocate for the appellant, representative of the Inspector of Schools and the present Headmaster of the School. Page 2 of 19 // 3 //
Legal Reasoning
The case of the appellant is that the Managing Committee of Binayak Dev High School, Naiguan in its rsolution No.73 dtd.31.8.84 resolved to appoint the appellant, Sri Bhagaban Sahoo as 4th section teacher. The appointment letter was issued to him vide letter No.263 atd.31.8.84 and accordingly he joined the post. At that time he was a Graduate and the school was an Aided Educational Institution. The Managing Committee in letter dated 14.12.94 sent the proposal with details of appointment of the appellant to the Inspector of Schools, Puri Circle, Puri for approval. The Inspector of Schools sent the proposal to the Director for ap roval. But it was not approved on the ground that the 3rd section i.e. Class-I-B was not approved then. Subsequently the Inspector of Schools approved one sri prasanna Kumar Das against the additional section of Class-X-B was net with effect from 4.8.84. It has been alleged by the appellant that the secretary of the Managing Committee demanded to pay 3.10,000/- as donation after which the proposal for approval of appointment of the appellant will be submitted to the educational authorities. As the appellant did not satisfy the illegal demand of the Secretary he prevented him to put his signature in the attendance register and take classes in the School. It is stated by the learned Advocate for the appellant that as per the G.O. No.26465/EYS dtd.6.7.81 the standard staffing pattern of the secondary School was determined. Clause (B) of the above G.O. needs as follows - For each of the additional section in Classes VIII, IX and X one additional trained Graduate teacher would be admissible. In addition to (1) Supra for every 3(three) additional sections of the above classes, (VIII to X) taken together one additional trained graduate teacher or one classical teacher according to necessary, would be admissible".
Decision
It is submitted by him that in view of the above staffing pattern a 4th Trd. Graduate teacher is admissible in the school as there are additional sections in the school for Class VIII to Class-X. As such the management has rightly appointed him, the appellant, in the 4th section to teacher post. But the approval of the Director could not be obtained as the 3rd section 1. e. Class-VIII-B was not approved then when proposal was submitted to the Directorate. The additional section for Class-IX-B was approved by the Inspector of Schools on 13.3.89 with effect from 4.8.84. The appellant was continuing in the school and the management submitted the proposal to the Director through the Inspector of Schools for approval of the 3rd section of Class-X- B. The appellant's appointment would have been approved by the Director in terms of the staffing pattern referred to above. Instead of doing so, the secretary and the Headmaster not allow him to take classes in the school which amounts termination. No notice was given to him before such prevention nor any reason was assigned in such illegal prevention. He therefore urged that in view of the fact that the principles of natural justice has not been followed in this case by the management. The Page 3 of 19 // 4 // appellant should be allowed to continue in service and his appointment be approved from the date he was appointed 1.e. 31.8.84 and other service benefits and continuity of service be allowed to him along with arrear salary in the appropriate scale of pay. The school has been taken over by Government with effect from 7.6.94. The Inspector of Schools had submitted his report with which is based on the report of the present Headmaster, Binayak Dev High School, Naiguan. The Headmaster admitted that as per the school records the Managing Committee had approved the appointment of the appellant vide resolution no.73 dated 31.8.84. 3rd section teachers who were appointed prior to sri sahoo have been approved by the competent authority and they are continuing in the school till today. He further reports that the Attendance Register, copy of which has been annexed to his report, shows that Sri Sahoo attended the school and signed in the Attendance Register from 5.9.84 to 7.9.91. Afterwards no signature is available in the Attendance Register. His appointment order and the joining report has not been handed over to him by the previous Headmaster. But it is ascertained from the staff Attendance Register and the statement of the staff that Sri Bhagaban Sahu had joined in the school on 5.9.84. He has also reported that no order of termination is available in the file nor there is any resolution to the effect by the Managing Committee terminating the services of the appellant. The facts stated by the Headmaster in his report was conceded d by him and also by the representative of the Inspector of Schools who was present at the time of hearing. The facts stated above proves that the appellant Sri Sahoo has been appointed by the Management against a post for which the school was eligible. Though the fact of Illegal demand by the then secretary could not be proved, it has been conceded by the Headmaster and the Inspector of Schools that the services of sci Sahoo has been illegally terminated by the then management without following due procedure which the natural justice demands. Hence the termination is illegal. The school has been taken over by the Government with effect from 7.6.94 as per the resolution No. 38522/SME dtd.16.12.94. Government took over the liability of these staff who were approved by the authorities on the date the school was taken over. Whatever may be the reason the appointment of the appellant was not approved on the 7.6.94. It has been stated by the representative of the Inspector of Schools that the school still justified a 4th section teacher as there are sufficient roll strength and 3 addl. sections from Class-VIII to Class-X have been continuing. The Inspector of Schools is therefore instructed to submit proposal for approval of the 4th section teacher post by the competent authority and after the post is approved the appellant will be allowed to continue in the post of and be paid his salary as per his eligibility with effect from the date the post was approved by the the competent authority. The proposal should be submitted Directorate immediately after receipt of this order. The Directorate on receipt of the proposal from the Inspector of Schools, Puri should to Page 4 of 19 // 5 // process the proposal and recommended the same to Government for approval of 4th section teacher post. This disposes the order of the Hon’ble High Court in OJC No. 3046/94.” 2.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that vide order dtd.24.10.1998 under Annexure-5, Opp. Party No. 2 while treating the termination of the Petitioner as illegal, directed the then Inspector of Schools, Puri (now Opp. Party No. 3) to submit the proposal for approval of the appointment of the Petitioner as against the post of Additional Section Teacher. In the said order basing on the submission made by the then Opp. Party No. 3, Opp. Party No. 2 found that the appointment as well as continuance of the Petitioner is justified taking into account the roll strength of the school in question. It is contended that even though Opp. Party No. 3 was requested to submit the proposal before Opp. Party No. 2 for approval of the services of the Petitioner, which was a justified one, but no such proposal as such was submitted in terms of the said order. 2.3. Petitioner being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of Opp. Party No. 3, once again approached this Court by filing OJC No. 14928 of 2001. This Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dt.13.03.2014 and by granting liberty to the Petitioner to move appropriate forum for consideration of his grievance. Order dtd.13.03.2014 so passed by this Court in OJC No. 14928 of 2001 is quoted hereunder:- “Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pandey, learned Standing for the School and Mass Education Department The petitioner has approached this Court with a limited grievance to allow the petitioner to join in his post and opposite party no.3-Inspector of Schools, Puri Circle, Puri to place the proposal before the opposite party no.2-Director, Secondary Education, Odisha as per direction in Annexure-5 for approval of the appointment of the Page 5 of 19 // 6 // petitioner as the 4th Section Teacher of opposite party no.4-School and release his salary component without any further delay. Mr. Pandey, learned Standing for the School and Mass Education Department states that the school having been taken over, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that his only prayer is that the Director knowing fully well that the school has been taken over waited for the recommendation of Inspector of Schools with regard to approval of the 4th Section Teacher post which the petitioner is holding. Due to inaction of the authority, he has filed this application. As the school has been taken over by the Government, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move appropriate forum for ventilating his grievance, if he is so advised. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.” 2.4. It is contended that in terms of the liberty granted by this Court in its order dt.13.03.2014, Petitioner filed the present application before the Tribunal on 06.05.2014. The Tribunal vide orderdtd.22.08.2014 was pleased to issue notice of the matter and directed the Opp. Parties to file their counter. 2.5. Pursuant to the notice received by the Opp. Parties, a counter affidavit was filed by the Opp. Party No. 3. In the said counter when a stand was taken that the appointment of the Petitioner was not made properly by the Managing Committee and such appointment is not justified, considering the stand so taken in the counter, this Court passed an order on 27.07.2023 to the following effect:- “1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to the earlier order passed by this Court dated 03.07.2023 pursuant to which additional counter has been filed by the District Education Officer, Puri on 20.03.2023. 2. The said affidavit filed by the District Education Officer, Puri contains the following at paragraph-5: Page 6 of 19 // 7 // "That it is humbly submitted that this is a fact that earlier this deponent/opposite party filed counter reply in this case before the learned OAT, Cuttack on 22.09.2018 in para-4 it is stated that the proposal for approval of post of the applicant/petitioner ie., 4th Section Teacher was submitted to the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar by the then Inspector of School, Puri Circle, Puri, but unfortunately the copy of office letter/proposal submitted by office of the then Inspector of Schools, Puri to the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha is not available now in this office due to destroy of office files/case records due to cyclone (Fani) during the year 2019." 3. Learned Senior Counsel referring to the averments made in the affidavit submits that the authorities have not stated the steps taken to retrieve/reconstruct the papers. 4. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State refers to the letter from the Director-opposite party no.2 dated 15th May, 2023 addressed to office of the Advocate General to submit that the contents of paragraph-5 is also reflected in the said letter of the Director and it is further submitted he may be accommodated to obtain up-to-date instruction regarding the steps to be taken in the matter. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned Additional Standing Counsel and the fact that the matter is pending since 2014, it is expected, by the next date the issue regarding the loss of the file/records shall be resolved by the authorities and further steps shall be taken in the matter. 6. It is further observed that the order of the higher authority, i.e., Director-opposite party no.2 has to be implemented and subsequent developments or events like destruction of file or otherwise cannot stand in the way of carrying out the said order of the superior authority. As prayed for, list on 29.08.2023.” 2.6. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 27.07.2023, in instruction so provided by the D.E.O., Puri vide his letter dtd.23.09.2023, when a stand was taken that Petitioner is not continuing in the school from the year 1991 and in the meantime he has attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2022, the following order was passed by this Court on 09.10.2023:- Page 7 of 19 // 8 // “2. Heard Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel. 3. Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction provided by the D.E.O., Puri vide his letter dt.23.09.2023. The same be kept on record. From the said instruction, it is found that after disposal of the appeal by Opp. Party No.2 vide order dt.24.10.1998 under Annexure-5, no action was taken by Opp. Party No.3 submitting the proposal as directed by Opp. Party No.2 for approval of the services of the Petitioner. From the instruction, it is found that the Headmaster of the school has now taken a different plea that the Petitioner is not continuing from the year 1991 and in the meantime, the Petitioner also attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2022. Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel accordingly contended that since the proposal as directed by Opp. Party No.2 vide under Anneuxre-5 could not be submitted by Opp. Party No.3 and now the Headmaster is taking a plea that the Petitioner is not in service from the year 1991, the order passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-5 at the present juncture cannot be entertained. 4. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel prays for some time to obtain instruction on the said issue. As requested, list this matter on 16th October, 2023.” 2.7. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 09.10.2023, a further affidavit was filed by the D.E.O., Puri before this Court on 09.01.2024. In the said affidavit, D.E.O., Puri took the following stand in Para 7 & 9 which are reproduced hereunder:- “7. That it appears, the petitioner having continued in a non- sanctioned post without any salary from the Management for 7 years from 05.09.84 to 07.09.91 (under Annexure-A/3) lost hope and left. He eked out his living from other sources. Keeping an eye for possible financial benefits through litigations he filed a case vide OJC No. 3046/1994 which is after 3 years of being denied duty by the private management. Though the Hon'ble Court order was passed on 31-10-1994, he pursued the matter half-heartedly. Despite having a follow up order passed by the Director partly in his favour in 1998 he did not follow. If the petitioner really wanted the job, he could not have left midway so long. After 3 years he filed OJC No. 14928/2001 and did not pursue. After 13 years in 2014 the aforesaid Page 8 of 19 // 9 // case was dismissed. He then moved the OAT and filed the present litigation. Now, it is already 9 years gone. XXX XXX XXX 9. That, the Inspector of Schools is not the competent authority to initiate any proposal for sanction of an Additional Section Teacher in Binayak Dev High School, Naiguan. It must come from the school management supported with logic. But in 1998, the school was already taken over to Govt. management. During 1994 to 2001, creation of Additional Section Teacher post in then taken over High Schools was an important activity under School and Mass Education department despite having austerity measures in force. Without proposal from the school, the Inspector of Schools was not in a convenient position to submit any such proposal. When the petitioner has stopped coming to the school from 1991 there was no probability to submit any proposal in his favour. The instructions of the Director notwithstanding, the actual field scenario need to support such action of the Inspector of Schools. In the absence of original primary documents, it is difficult to find out all chronological developments that took place then. What however transpires from circumstantial evidences discussed hereinabove, inaction, if at all, on Director's instructions in the order Dt.17-11- 1998 may not be ascribed to erstwhile Inspector of Schools, Puri alone.” 2.8. Taking into account the nature of order passed by the Director under Annexure-5 and the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 3 and further affidavit filed by Opp. Party No. 3 on 09.01.2024, this Court passed the following order on 10.01.2024:- “2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, affidavit filed by the D.E.O., Puri in Court be kept in record. But the affidavit is not in terms of the query raised by this Court. 3. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate prays for some time to obtain positive instruction in the matter. 4. As requested, list this matter on 19.01.2024. No further time will be allowed.” Page 9 of 19 // 10 // 2.9. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 10.01.2024, further instruction was provided by the Director, Secondary Education vide his letter dtd.18.01.2024. The instruction so provided in reproduced hereunder:- “As directed by the Hon'ble High Court in the Interim Order Dt.10.01.2024 passed in WPC(OAC) No. 2591 of 2014 filed by Bhagaban Sahoo it is humbly submitted that I as Opposite Party No. 2 have already submitted required instructions in the matter in this Directorate letter No. 13168 dt. 15.05.2023. Meanwhile, the District Education Officer, Puri in consultation with this Opp. Party No. 2 has already filed an affidavit which has been taken on record by the Hon'ble Court as would be evident from the Order Dt 10.01.2024. The Hon'ble High Court in the Order Dt.10.01.2024 has observed that the affidavit filed by the District Education Officer, Puri is not in terms of the query raised by the court As a matter of fact, the query referred to in the said order lies in the Interim Order Dt. 23.11.2023 wherein the Hon'ble Court desired to know as to why on the face of the order passed by the Director on 24.10.1998, the then Inspector of Schools, Puri Circle, Puri could not take step to comply the said order of the Director. In response thereof, the District Education Officer, Puri in Para-9 of the affidavit has already stated reasons as to why Director Order Dt. 17.11.1998 was not carried out. The District Education Officer, Puri has also stated in the same Para that by 1998, the school was already taken over by the Govt. The effective date of taken over was 07.06.1994. As per policy laid down in Govt. Resolution No. 38522 Dt. 16.12.1994, the Govt. took over the management of all such schools along with approved staff. There was specific condition in the very first paragraph that Govt. would not be liable to clear any liability whatsoever relating to period prior to and or as on and after 07.06.1994. Thus, any liability created by the management by appointing different section teachers will not be automatic transmission of burden to the State. The case of the petitioner falling under this category therefore creates no entitlement from the state Govt. The above facts may kindly be appraised to the Hon'ble Court during the next hearing of the matter.” 2.10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner taking into account the stand taken by Opp. Party No. 3 as well as the order passed by the Director under Annexure- Page 10 of 19 // 11 // 5, contended that on the face of the order passed by Opp. Party No. 2 on 24.10.1998 under Annexure-5, Opp. party No. 3 was required to submit the proposal and at no point of time Opp. Party No. 3 sought for modification of the said order or that he is not in a position to submit the proposal unless the same is forwarded by the School Management. It is also contended that the order passed on 24.10.1998 when was not complied by Opp. Party No. 3, Petitioner again approached this Court in OJC No. 14928 of 2021 seeking implemention of the order passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-5. The said writ petition after being kept pending for around 13 years was disposed of on 13.03.2014 by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for consideration of his grievance. Since at the relevant point of time the grievance lies to the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Petitioner in terms of the order dtd.13.03.2014 filed the present matter before the Tribunal on 06.05.2014. It is accordingly contended that there is no latches on the part of the Petitioner with regard to non-implementation of the order so passed by the Director on 24.10.1998 under Annexure-5. 2.11. It is contended that since for the admitted latches on the part of the Opp. Party No. 3, Petitioner’s services could not be approved, even though the appointment of the Petitioner was held justified at the relevant point of time by Opp. Party No. 2 as found from Annexure-5, Petitioner could not get his services approved and accordingly could not continue in the school as an approved teacher till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2022. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since for the admitted latches on the part of the Opp. Party No. 3, Petitioner was deprived to get the benefit of approval and consequential continuance as an Asst. Teacher, as well as his right to livelihood including post retirement benefits, Petitioner is liable to be suitably compensated for such admitted latches on the part of the Opp. Page 11 of 19 // 12 // Party No. 3. In support of his submission Mr. Biswal relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court:- 1. The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C. Muddaiah (2007) 7 SCC 689 2. Shiv Nandan Mahto Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 626 3. Nalina Kumar Sarangi Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.C.(OAC) No. 2642 of 2011 4. Purnendu Kishore Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. (O.J.C. No. 9427 of 1995) 5. Bairagi Charan Sahoo Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (2021 (I) OLR 692) 2.12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karnatak Housing Board in para 32 & 33 has held as follows:- “32. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a court of law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of the rule of law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected. 33. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. It is true that while granting a relief in favour of a party, the court must consider the relevant provisions of law and issue appropriate directions keeping in view such provisions. There may, however, be cases where on the facts and in the circumstances, the court may issue necessary directions in the larger interest of justice keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a court of law. The court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him Page 12 of 19 // 13 // and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The court, in the circumstances, directs the authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged.” 2.13. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Nandan Mahto in Para 4, 5 & 6 has held as follows:- “4. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the appellant submitted a representation before the Director, Secondary Education, Patna on 17-11- 1983 and the Director issued directions to adjust the appellant against the post of clerk in a school in the aforesaid District. On 3-2-1984, the Director, Secondary Education, Patna directed the posting of the appellant as clerk in the High School, Virhan, Madhubani upon transfer of another teacher. However, it later transpires that there was no vacancy on the post of clerk in the district. Therefore, directions were issued to adjust the appellant as and when vacancy is available. Since there was no post of clerk in the High School Virhan, Madhubani, the appellant was made to join the office of the District Education Officer, Virhan with effect from 3- 3-1984 and allotted duties and work in the aforesaid office. Subsequently, directions were issued to post the appellant as a clerk in a different school. It appears that due to lack of vacancy, the appellant was not posted in any school for some time. 5. The appellant again protested to the Director for not being given posting orders on the post of clerk. It appears that the appellant was made a rolling stone for long period of time being shunted from school to school in an effort to locate a vacancy for him. In the meantime, the appellant had not received any salary from any source. Ultimately, the appellant moved the High Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 516 of 1990 with a prayer seeking reinstatement and consequential benefits. Page 13 of 19 // 14 // 6. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, upon noticing the entire fact situation, accepted the plea of the appellant that he had been duly appointed as Clerk and wrongly shown as a Librarian. Consequently, directions were issued to reinstate the appellant forthwith. It was also noticed that the removal of the appellant from service was not for any fault of his. He was also directed to be given the benefit of continuity of service and other benefits. However, surprisingly, the learned Single Judge directed that he will not be entitled to any remuneration for the period when he was not in service on the ground that he had not worked. The respondent did not challenge the finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge. In fact, it was the appellant who challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the ground that he ought to have been granted full back wages for the period he had been kept out of service.” 2.14. This Court in the case of Nalina Kumar Sarangi in Para 11, 17 & 18 has held as follows:- “11. It is submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 15.02.2008, the Petitioner was ultimately reinstated in service vide order dated 28.02.2011 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is submitted that since the Petitioner without any fault of his own remained out of employment w.e.f. 06.04.2002 till he is reinstated vide order dated 28.02.2011, the Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get service and financial benefits for the said period. The present writ petition has been filed with such prayer and to extend the service and financial benefit w.e.f. from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner as a regular primary school teacher dated 15.05.1996. XXX XXX XXX 17. Perused the materials available on record. This Court after going through the same find that the Petitioner without any fault of his own remained out of employment for the period from 6.4.2002 till 28.02.2011. Therefore, the Petitioner is not only entitled to get all service and financial benefit for the period 06.04.2002 to 28.02.2011 but also the Petitioner is entitled to get the said benefit notionally taking into account his initial appointment as regular Primary School Teacher w.e.f. 15.05.1996. This Court while holding so directs the Opposite Parties to extend all such benefits in favour of the Petitioner. 18. Since it is submitted that the Petitioner has retired in the meantime, the Petitioner will also be eligible and entitled to Page 14 of 19 // 15 // have revision of his pension and pensionary benefits. Accordingly, this Court directs the Opposite Parties to extend all such benefit as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.” 2.15. This Court in the case of Purnendu Kishore Mohanty in Para 7, 8 & 9 has held as follows:- “7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the question that remains to be decided by this Court is, as to whether the petitioner will be entitled to the financial benefits and other service benefits consequent upon the order of his reinstatement or not. We find from the records that Annexure-4, i.e. the order of the Director, Secondary Education, directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all service benefits from the date of termination order which was passed on February 20, 1993 and the Management carried the matter to this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even after disposal of the SLP before the Supreme Court on February 8, 1999 the petitioner was not taken back to service and he had to file the present writ petition for the said purpose. The Management knew fully well that in view of the decision of this Court as well as the order passed by the Apex Court, they had hardly any chance of success in the present writ application, but still contested the same. We have carefully considered the decisions cited by Shri Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 3 and 4, and we are of the view that the facts of those decisions are completely different and not applicable to the present case. In the present case the matter was carried up to the Apex Court by the Management and even after losing before the Apex Court the petitioner was not reinstated in service. Keeping these facts in mind as well as the difficulties pointed out by the learned counsel for opposite parties, we are of the view that justice will be met if the petitioner is allowed a lump sum amount towards financial benefits on reinstatement. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn our attention to an order passed in the case of Geeta Mukherjee Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 91 of 1992: Geeta Mukherjee v. K. Biswanathan, another similarly placed employee of the said school where this Court directed payment of the consolidated sum of rupees one lakh towards arrear dues and in case of another employee of the said school this Court also directed payment of rupees seventy five thousand towards arrear dues. 9. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner be reinstated in service and he shall be paid a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- (rupees one lakh and twenty-five thousand only) towards his arrear dues Page 15 of 19 // 16 // within a period of six months. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs.” 2.16. This Court in the case of Bairagi Charan Sahoo in Para 11 & 12 has held as follows:- “11. Taking into consideration the principle of law, as discussed above, and applying the same to the present context, this Court is of the considered view that though the petitioner joined as Hindi Teacher on 02.07.1982 with a qualification of Matric (Kovid) and subsequently he acquired 'Ratna' qualification on 25.10.1996 and HTTC, Hindi Training qualification on 29.12.1999 and was allowed the Hindi trained scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7000/- w.e.f. 29.12.1999, that itself cannot disentitle him to get the time bound advancement scale of pay for continuous holding the "post" or "grade" for 15 years. Thus, drawal of higher scale of pay on account of acquisition of 'Ratna' qualification by the petitioner being immaterial, he is eligible to enjoy the benefit of time bound advancement scale of pay on completion of 15 years for holding of Hindi "post" or "grade" w.e.f. 02.07.1982 in accordance with Finance Department memorandum dated 29.12.1987, which fact has been clarified by the Government on 20.06.1991, as has been dealt with in the judgment passed by this Court in Balabhadra Sarangi mentioned supra. In the meantime, though the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, but that ipso facto cannot disentitle him to get the benefit, as claimed in the writ petition. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances as well as the law, as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to get the time bound advancement scale of pay on completion of 15 years of service from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 02.07.1982. Therefore, this Court directs the opposite parties to calculate the differential arrear salary and pay the same to the petitioner forthwith preferably by 31st May, 2021, failing which it will carry an interest @ 9% per annum.” 3. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that even though Opp. Party No. 2 on consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, held his termination as illegal and directed the D.E.O., Puri - Opp. Party No. 3 to submit the proposal for approval of the services of the Petitioner, but because of loss of records due to the cyclone FANI, which Page 16 of 19 // 17 // occurred in the year 2019, the proposal could not be submitted as directed. It is further contended that the very appointment of the Petitioner was illegal as the Petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee as an Additional Section Teacher, without following the direction issued in that regard. It is also contended that Petitioner since 1991 is not in service and his services was never approved after the school was taken over w.e.f.07.06.1994. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get any benefit as prayed for. 3.1. With regard to the inaction on the part of the Opp. Party No. 3 in not submitting the proposal in terms of the order passed under Annexure-5, learned AGA relied on the stand taken in Para 7 & 9 of the affidavit dtd.09.01.2024, which was reproduced in the earlier paragraph. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get any benefit and so also any compensation as claimed by the Petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court find that while disposing the appeal in terms of the order passed by this Court in OJC No. 3046 of 1994, Opp. Party No. 2 clearly held that the very appointment of the Petitioner at the relevant point of time was a justified one and the said justification also continued even after taken over of the school w.e.f.07.06.1994. Opp. Party No. 2 after considering the materials placed before him came to a finding that the action of the Managing Committee in terminating the Petitioner from his services w.e.f.07.09.1991 is illegal. While holding the termination of the Petitioner as illegal, Opp. Party No. 2 directed the then Inspector of Schools/D.E.O., Puri – Opp. Party No. 3 to submit the proposal for approval of the services of the Petitioner. While directing so, Opp. Party No. 2 also found that the post in which the Petitioner was appointed is a justified one and Page 17 of 19 // 18 // such justification is also available as on the date of passing of the order on 24.10.1998. 4.1. Since the order dtd.24.10.1998 was never challenged nor any application was made by Opp. Party No. 3 seeking modification/clarification of the order in question, it is the view of this Court that Opp. party No. 3 should have complied the direction by submitting the proposal for approval of the services of the Petitioner. It is also found that challenging the inaction of Opp. Party No. 3 in not submitting the proposal, Petitioner approached this Court in OJC No. 14928 of 2001. This Court though initially entertained the matter, but disposed of the same vide order dtd.13.03.2014, by granting liberty to the Petitioner to move appropriate forum. In terms of the said order, the present application was filed before the Tribunal on 06.05.2014 and on its transfer it has come to this Court once again. 4.2. After going through the materials placed by the respective Parties, this Court is of the view that because of the in action of the Opp. Party No. 3 in not submitting the proposal, the services of the Petitioner could not be approved on the face of the clear order passed by the Director on 24.10.1998 under Annexure-5. In view of such in action of Opp. Party No. 3, Petitioner could not get his services approved and accordingly was deprived to get the benefit of salary till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2022 and so also pension and other pensionary benefits on his retirement which fell due on 30.04.2022. This Court placing reliance on the decisions as cited supra, is of the view that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get compensation for such admitted latches on the part of the Opp. Party No. 3. This Court taking into account the entirety of the fact, is of the view that Petitioner is entitled to get compensation amount of Rs. 10 lakhs. While holding so, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to release the aforesaid compensation amount of Page 18 of 19 // 19 // Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the Petitioner within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, it is open for the Opp. Party No. 1 to saddle the compensation amount on the D.E.Os, who continued as D.E.O., Puri from 24.10.1998 till Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2022, proportionately and recover the same in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 19th of January, 2024/Sneha (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Feb-2024 14:56:51 Page 19 of 19