Allowed

Pravakar Sahoo v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC17 Apr 2019WP(C)/23367/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge court granted a direction to the School and Mass Education Department to regularize the petitioner's ad hoc service as a Head Pandit in an aided institution. Relying on a 2011 Government decision on humanitarian grounds and the absence of any action over seven years, the Court directed the completion of regularization and pension benefits within three months, effectively dismissi

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's service as Head Pandit and extend consequential service and pensionary benefits under Rule 9(1) of 1974 Rules within three months.

Pravakar Sahoo Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 23367 of 2012

¶2

17.04.2019 Heard Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.

¶3

The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize the service as Head Pandit in Ramakrushna Tol, in the district of Jajpur with effect from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., 25.02.1988 and extent all consequential service benefits including the pensionary benefits as has been extended to other ad hoc teachers whose services have already been validated in terms of Rule-9(1) of 1974 Rules.

¶4

Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was duly selected and appointed by the managing committee of the school and accordingly he was continued in service. But due to non-regularization of service, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court in a batch of writ petitions vide order dated 25.02.1993 directed for approval of the post. In compliance thereto, vide order dated 20.03.1993 in Annexure-5, the name of the petitioner has been approved as ad hoc ‘pandit/teacher’ along with other teachers working in different aided Sanskrit institutions of the State to continue in the service w.e.f. 19.12.1992/26.12.1992, till the petitioner is replaced by properly constituted Selection Board as per rules as made by the Department/Directorate of

¶5

¶6

Secondary Education, Orissa/Government of Orissa. It is contended that in spite of approval being made, till date no steps has been taken with regard to regularization of service of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Government in its wisdom taken a decision in its meeting held on 04.07.2011 to the effect that the matter relating to regularization of service of ad hoc teachers and pundits raised by General Secretary, NSM would be considered on humanitarian ground. In compliance of the same, the Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies, Orissa, Puri wrote a letter to the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa on 20.07.2011 with regard to fixation of pay and validation of services of ad hoc pundits and teaches of the State. Since no action has been taken by the authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application.

¶7

Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department seeks time to file counter affidavit. Since it is a year old matter of the year 2012 and, as such, though notice was issued in the matter since long, i.e., 15.01.2013, till date no counter affidavit has been filed, this Court is not inclined to grant any further adjournment in the matter as requested by the learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.

¶8

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, applying the principles of doctrine of non-

¶9

¶10

traverse, this Court proceeded with the matter and is of the considered view that the petitioner is rendering service as a pandit/teacher in the aided institution and his service has been approved on ad hoc basis pursuant to Annexure-5 dated 20.03.1993 and, as such, Government has taken a decision to regularize the services of ad hoc pandits/teachers on humanitarian ground. In the meantime, more than 30 years have been passed, but no action has been taken at the level of the Government and, as such, though request was made by the Superintendent of Sanskrit Studies to the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa on 20.07.2011, till date no steps have been taken nor any communication has been made by any authority with regard to the steps taken for regularization of service. Apart from the same, it appears that claiming the benefit the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2012, and this Court issued notice in the matter on 15.01.2013, but in spite of notice being made sufficient, opposite parties have not filed any counter affidavit till date. In the meantime, more than 7 years have been passed, which itself indicates the apathetic attitude of the authority to the petitioner in the present case.

¶11

In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that, in view of the decision taken by the Government in the proceeding dated 04.07.2011 in Annexure-8, the service of the petitioner should be

¶12

¶13

regularized and he should be extended all consequential service and financial benefits including the pensionary benefit, as has been extended to other ad hoc teachers whose services have already been validated in terms of Rule-9(1) of 1974 Rules, and this Court directs accordingly. The entire exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of production/communication of this order by the petitioner.

¶14

The writ petition stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶15

Ashok

¶16

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

Pravakar Sahoo v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravakar Sahoo v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendriya Mishra Vs State of Orissa

Debashish Swain Vs Principal Secy.to Govt.of Odisha

Rabindranath Das Vs State

Banamaber Mishra Vs State and Ors.

Debendra Ku.Rath Vs State and Ors.

Annapurna Mishra Vs State and Ors.