Disposed

Santanu Ku.Dash v. State

Orissa HC3 Jul 2019WP(C)/13981/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined the maintainability of a writ petition regarding salary arrears and withdrawal of recognition by private schools. It held the writ petition was not maintainable due to the non-joinder of the High Power Committee, which has the power to withdraw recognition, and granted liberty to file a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the High Power Committee within 10 days.

Santanu Ku.Dash Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 13981 of 2008

¶2

03.07.2019

¶3

Heard Mr. S.K. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.

¶4

The petitioner has filed this application seeking following relief:

¶5

“(i) The school authorities shall not be directed to pay the arrear salary of the petitioner as per the statutory requirement, rules and regulations prevailing at par with other State Government Employees as per Annexure-2.

¶6

(ii) The school authorities shall not be directed to pay the such dues of the petitioner @Rs.12,000/- per month after deducting the paid amount which comes to Rs.1,54,000/- with interest and litigation expenses;

¶7

(iii) The opposite parties 1 to 3 who have recommended for grant of NOC to the school after observing all formalities shall not be directed to adhere to the proceed for necessary action for nonperformance of statutory requirement as contemplated in the regulations;

¶8

(iv) The inaction of the opposite parties for nonperformance of statutory duties shall not be declared as illegal;

¶9

And if the opposite parties failed to show cause or causes shown are insufficient the said rule may be made absolute.”

¶10

In course of hearing, query was made by this Court vide order dated 30.11.2015 with regard to maintainability of the writ petition as against private education institutions, to which Mr. S.K. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner only confines to prayer no.(iii) of the writ petition. Thereby, the writ petition is maintainable.

¶11

¶12

Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department contended that the petitioner has relied upon the resolution dated 23.09.1996 in Annexure-2 issued by the School and Mass Education Department wherein it has been specifically mentioned that so far as withdrawal of No Objection Certificate is concerned, it is the High Power Committee, who is competent to review the NOC/recognition issued in favour of any institution and shall be competent to withdraw the same, if it is satisfied that the terms and conditions as stated for the purpose are violated. Under clause-7(A)(i), it has been stated that not paying salaries and allowances to teachers and other employees, at least at par with the employees of State Government can also be withdrawn. It is contended that the High Power Committee has not been made party to the proceeding.

¶13

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since the High Power Committee has not been made as party to the proceeding, the writ petition is not maintainable due to non-joinder of proper party.

¶14

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Power Committee by filing fresh representation, which shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶15

In such view of the matter, this writ petition

¶16

¶17

stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the High Power Committee within 10 days from today. If such representation is filed, the High Power Committee shall consider and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. Needless to say that for other benefits of the petitioner, he is permitted to move the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

¶18

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶19

Ashok

¶20

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

Santanu Ku.Dash v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santanu Ku.Dash v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aishwarya Sahu Vs Sambalpur University

Anitabala Mahakul Vs Sambalpur University

Baikunthanath Vs State

Abani Ch.Das Vs Orissa Construction

Dr.a.Satyanarayan Vs v.C.,Sbp.University

Rajlaxmi Mohapatra Vs State