The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.41417 of 2023 Sudarsan Barik …. Petitioner Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Jena, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 22.01.2024 Order No 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Instruction provided by the Controller of Accounts vide letter dtd.22.01.2024 produced before this Court be kept in record. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner while continuing as a LD Clerk, was promoted to the post of UD Clerk and subsequently to the post of Head Clerk. As per the order passed by the Director, Higher Education – Opp. Party No. 2 on 29.10.1998 under Annexure-5, the post of UD Clerk & Head Clerk as against which the Petitioner was promoted was approved w.e.f.01.08.1983 and 21.08.1985 and Petitioner was made eligible to receive Grant- in-aid w.e.f.01.06.1985 and 21.08.1985 with full salary as against the post of Head Clerk w.e.f.21.08.1989. // 2 // 4.1. Petitioner while so continuing, he was also extended with the benefit of MACP vide order dtd.13.12.2019 under Annexure-6 w.e.f.01.05.2016. Thereafter, when Petitioner retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2019, his pension papers were duly submitted before the Controller of Accounts for sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits. But on the ground that Petitioner since has not passed the Accounts Training and not entitled to get the benefit of MACP, the pension papers have been returned back to the office of Opp. Party No. 2 by Opp. Party No. 4 vide letter dtd.25.09.2023 under Annexure-7. While returning back the pension paper and the service book, it has been indicated that since Petitioner has not passed the Accounts Training, he is not eligible to get the benefit of MACP, which was sanctioned vide order dtd.13.12.2019 under Annexure-6. While holding so, Opp. Party No. 4 has requested Opp. Party No. 2 to re- submit the pension paper after withdrawing the benefit of MACP so sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner and to recover excess payment, if any. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner got the benefit of promotion to the post of UD Clerk and Head Clerk, which was approved vide order dtd.29.10.1998 w.e.f.01.06.1985 and 21.08.1985 respectively under Anenxure-5, and requirement of passing the Accounts Training to get the benefit of promotion was brought into effect by the Govt. in the Department of Higher Education with issuance of the notificatieon on 31.08.1999, Petitioner was not required to pass the Accounts Training in order to get the benefit of MACP, which was rightly sanctioned vide order dtd.13.12.2019 under Annexure-6. Page 2 of 6 // 3 // 4.3. It is contended that the issue has also been decided by this Court in its order dtd.18.10.2001 in the case of Rajendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (MANU/OR/0043/2002). This Court in Para 16 & 17 of the said order has held as follows:- “16.Examining Accounts the problem from another angle, it appears that the training and Examination, was all-along conducted by the State Government through the Board of Revenue and the candidates for taking said training and appearing the Examination were to be sponsored by the State Government from Government establishments. The petitioner not being an employee of the State Government could not have taken training and appeared the Accounts Examination. This is also a which clearly reveals 1999, the embargo of passing the that till 1 was not insisted upon factor the Accounts Examination so far as Ministerial employees of private or Non-Govt. Educational Institutions are concerned, as there was no mode training or conducting Account provided for far as Non-Government Examination, Institutions are concerned. imparting concerned. SO 17. After hearing Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and after perusing the counter affidavits and the documents filed by the State Government, I have no hesitation to hold that in the year 1980 and 1986 respectively, there was no provision stipulating the condition of passing Accounts Examination as pre-requisite for promotion to the post of U.D.C. and H.C. and that the said stipulation was introduced only in the 1974 Rules as and when the said Rules were made applicable to Non-Government Educational Institutions and/or with effect from 1997 as would be evident from Annexure-A/2, whichever is earlier.” 4.4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner has got the benefit of promotion prior to 31.08.1999 and his promotion to the post of U.D. Clerk and Head Clerk since was approved vide order dtd.29.10.1998 under Annexure-5 prior to issuance of the notification dtd.31.08.1999, he was not required to pass the Accounts Training. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner was Page 3 of 6 // 4 // rightly extended with the benefit of MACP vide order dtd.13.12.2019 under Annexure-6. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which the pension papers have been returned back by Opp. Party No. 4 to Opp. Party No. 2 vide letter dtd.25.09.2023 under Annexure-7 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. On instruction learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that as per the notification issued by the Govt. on 31.08.1999, in order to get the benefit of promotion to the post of UD Clerk or Senior Clerk, a Junior Clerk or LD Clerk is required to pass preliminary accounts examination. Since Petitioner at the time of getting the benefit was not having the Accounts Training, Opp. Party No. 4 while considering the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of pension, when found that Petitioner since has not passed the accounts training, is not eligible to get the benefit of MACP so sanctioned vide order dt.13.12.2019, objection was raised vide Annexure-7 with the request to re-submit the pension papers after complying the objection so raised. 5.1. It is also contended that as provided under the resolution issued by the Govt. with regard to extension of the benefit of MACP, it was indicated in Para 17(xviii) that financial up-gradation in favour of an employee under MACP shall not be considered, if he is found unsuitable for promotion or does not fulfill the condition for promotion. 5.2. As per the guideline issued vide notification dtd.31.08.1999, it has been clearly prescribed that a Jr. Clerk or LD Clerk in order to be eligible to be considered for the post of U.D. Clerk & Sr. Clerk should have passed the preliminary accounts examination. Petitioner since had not passed the same, he was not eligible to get Page 4 of 6 // 5 // the benefit of promotion to the post of U.D. Clerk and Head Clerk, which was wrongly allowed in his favour. Since Petitioner was not eligible to get the benefit of promotion as provided in the notification dt.31.08.1999, he was also not eligible to get the benefit of MACP in view of the stipulation contained under Para 17 (xviii) of the Regulation dt.22.12.2017. But benefit of MACP was wrongly allowed by the Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dtd.13.12.2019 under Annexure-6. It is accordingly contended that there is no illegality or irregularity with regard to the objection raised by the Opp. Party No 4 while issuing letter on dt.25.09.2023 under Annexure-7. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that by the time notification dtd.31.08.1999 was issued making it mandatory on the part of the LD Clerk or Junior Clerk to have Accounts Training to get the benefit of promotion to the post of UD Clerk or Senior Clerk, Petitioner had already got the benefit of promotion w.e.f.01.08.1983 with due approval of his promotion vide order dtd.29.10.1998 under Annexure-5. 6.1. Placing reliance on the decision as cited supra, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner since has got the benefit of promotion prior to issuance of the notification dt.31.08.1999, he has been rightly allowed the benefit of MACP vide order dt.13.12.2019 under Annexure-6. Petitioner in order to get the benefit of promotion to the post of UD Clerk and Head Clerk, was not required to acquire the Accounts Training. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the objection raised by Opp. Party No. 4 with regard to sanction of MACP in favour of the Petitioner vide communication issued on dt.25.09.2023 under Page 5 of 6 // 6 // Annexure-7. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to resubmit the pension papers as it was submitted earlier within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the pension papers as directed, Opp. Party No. 4 shall take effective steps to sanction pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible within a further period of six (6) weeks.
Decision
7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (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: 24-Jan-2024 11:25:40 Page 6 of 6