Remanded

Himansu Sekhar Satapathy v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Dec 2020WP(C)/14445/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions for leave, retirement, and pension benefits as employees of an aided educational institution. The court remitted the matter to the authority to consider other benefits in light of the ratio in a prior judgment regarding block grant employees, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Matter remitted to authority for consideration within four months.

Himansu Sekhar Satapathy Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 14445 OF 2020

¶2

03. 02.12.2020

¶3

The matter is taken up through video conferencing.

¶4

Heard Mr. P.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department.

¶5

The petitioners have filed this application seeking direction to the opposite parties to allow them to avail the leave benefits under the Orissa Education (Leave of Teachers and other Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1977, retiral and pensionary benefit under the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions’ Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 and G.P.F. benefit under the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees’ General Provident Funds Rules, 1983, as employees of aided educational institution.

¶6

Mr. P.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the petitioners are working in an educational institution receiving block grant, in view of the judgment passed in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul v. State of Odisha (School & M.E. Deptt.) & others , 2016 (I) ILR-1162 wherein this Court has already held that the legal heirs of deceased employees of educational institutions receiving block grant are entitled to get compassionate appointment, pursuant to which the Government of Odisha in the Department of School & Mass Education has issued a circular on 01.08.2019 granting benefit of compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employees working in fully aided educational institutions and educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid (New)/block grant, therefore, other benefits as claimed in the writ application should be extended to the petitioners.

¶7

Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department contended that in view of law laid down in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra) although benefit of compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employees of

¶8

¶9

educational institutions receiving block grant has already been extended by the State Government, pursuant to letter dated 01.08.2019, but so far as other claims as made in this writ application, the petitioners are not entitled to get the same, as because the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 was denied by this Court in State of Odisha v. Sri Lokanath Behera , 2018 (II) OLR 932, which has been confirmed by the apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7295 of 2019 arising out of SLP(C) No. 8343 of 2019 disposed of on 16.09.2019.

¶10

Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court is of the considered view that since the benefit of compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of deceased employees of educational institutions receiving block grant has already been extended by the authority, vide circular dated 01.08.2019, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned for consideration with regard to extension of other benefits as claimed in the writ application taking into account the ratio decided in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra) within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. Needless to mention, if it is found that the petitioners are entitled to get all the benefits, as claimed in the writ application in consonance with the law laid down in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra), the same shall be granted within the time stipulated.

¶11

The writ petition is thus disposed of.

¶12

.....……………………. Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.

¶13

Ashok

¶14

Himansu Sekhar Satapathy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himansu Sekhar Satapathy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalpana Roy Vs Urban Co-Op.Bank

Dr.Satya Pr Dash Vs Utkal University.

Damodar Meher Vs Secy.,Dept.of Health

Sarita Dash Vs State of Odisha

Bimal Ch.Parida Vs State

Santosh Kumar Jayasingh Vs Registrar of Coop.Societies