Remanded

Namita Dash v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Nov 2020WP(C)/31289/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Odisha directed the State authority to reconsider the petitioners' claim for leave, pension, and GPF benefits, considering the ratio of Ritanjali Giri regarding compassionate appointment, without expressing an opinion on the merits. It stipulated a two-month timeline for decision and interest for delays.

What did the court decide?

Remitted back to the authority concerned for consideration regarding extension of other benefits within two months. Interest @7% per annum for delay.

Namita Dash Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.31289 of 2020

¶2

19.11.2020 This matter is taken up through Video

¶3

conferencing.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

The petitioners have filed this writ application seeking for a direction to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to avail the leave benefits under the Orissa Education (Leave of Teachers and other Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1977, retrial 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 they are employees of an aided educational institution.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that since the petitioners are working in the 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 Department 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 petitioners.

¶7

Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State 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 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.

¶8

Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, 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 3 account the ratio decided in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra) within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order by the petitioners. Needless to mention, if it is found that the petitioners are entitled to get all the benefits, as claimed in the writ application in

¶9

consonance with the law laid down in Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra), the same shall be granted within the time stipulated but however taking care of the direction of this Court dated 03.11.2020, passed in W.P.(C) No.22706 of 2020. In the event payment involving petitioners is not released within two months, it shall carry interest @7% per annum for the period of delay and the interest component shall be recovered from the person responsible for such delay.

¶10

Petitioners may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notification No.4587 dated 25.3.2020.

¶11

……………………………. Biswanath Rath, J.

¶12

kcb

Namita Dash v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namita Dash 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

Mousumi Rath Vs State of Odisha

Kameleswar Mishra Vs Union of India.

Gangadhar Barik Vs Srikanta Samal

Minaketan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Dharanidhar Patel Vs State of Odisha

Puspak Kumar Ray Vs State of Odisha