Remanded

Himanshu Sekhar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Oct 2020WP(C)/25889/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered a writ petition seeking parity with employees of fully aided educational institutions regarding leave, pension, and GPF benefits. Relying on a prior judgment extending compassionate appointment to block grant employees, the matter was remitted to the authority for consideration before disposal.

What did the court decide?

The matter remitted to the concerned authority for consideration regarding extension of all claimed benefits within four months.

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

¶1

W.P.(C) No.25889 of 2020

¶2

12.10.2020

¶3

This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing due to Lockdown in the wake of Pandemic COVID-19.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.

¶5

In the accompanying writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for direction to the opposite parties to treat the petitioner at par with the employees of other aided educational institutions who were extended with grant-in-aid in accordance with Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994 and accordingly to extend all benefits as applicable to the Aided Educational institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, such as Earned Leaves as prescribed under Rule 09 of 1977 Rules, extraordinary leaves as prescribed under Rule 12 of 1977 Rules as well as Study Leave as prescribed under Rule 13 of 1977 Rules and other benefits as provided under 1977 Rules, Pension Rules, GPF Rules, though the same facilities and benefits were given to the employees of other institutions, which were notified under Section 3(b) of the Orissa Educational Act pursuant to the Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994.

¶6

G/D

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the petitioner is 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-inaid (New)/block grant, therefore, other benefits as claimed in the writ application should be extended to the petitioner.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education

¶9

¶10

Department contended that the ratio decided in the case of Ritanjali Giri (supra) is only confined to grant of benefit under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Therefore, other benefits are not covered under the aforesaid decision.

¶11

The petitioner initially got block grant as per the Grantin-Aid Order, 2004 and subsequently full grant-in-aid as per Grant-inAid Order, 2017.

¶12

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

¶13

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

The concerned authority shall act on production of certified/authenticated copy of this order along with the copy of the representation and writ petition.

¶15

P. Patnaik, J.

Himanshu Sekhar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Sekhar Mishra 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

Guna Meher Vs State of Odisha

Md. Zilani @ Md.Zalani Vs State of Odisha

Bibhuti Bhusan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Duryodhan Behera Vs State of Orissa

Satish Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Kshirod Chandra Mohanta Vs State of Odisha