Remanded

Kanhu Charan Das v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Jun 2020WP(C)/6205/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered a writ petition for extending aided educational institution benefits to an employee of a block grant institution. Citing Ritanjali Giri @ Paul regarding compassionate appointment, the court remitted the matter to the authority to consider other claimed benefits within four months without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Remitted to the authority concerned to consider the extension of other claimed benefits within four months.

Kanhu Charan Das Vs State of Odisha — Education and Admissions | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 6205 of 2020

¶2

¶3

02. 04.06.2020

¶4

Heard Mr. S. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Satpathy, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.

¶5

The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to the opposite parties to treat the petitioner at par with the employees of other aided educational institutions, who have been extended with grant-in-aid in accordance with Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, and accordingly extend all benefits as applicable to the aided educational institutions within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, such as earned leaves as prescribed under Rule 9 of 1977 Rules, extra ordinary leaves as prescribed under Rule 12 of 1977 Rules, as well as study leaves 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 Education Act, 1969 pursuant to Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994.

¶6

Mr. S. Swain, 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) ILR1162 wherein this Court has already held that the legal heirs of deceased employees of educational institutions receiving block grant are entitled to get compassionate

¶7

¶8

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 grantin-aid (New)/block grant, therefore, other benefits as claimed in the writ application should be extended to the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. B. Satpathy, learned Standing Counsel for School and 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 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 petitioner is 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 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

¶11

¶12

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 petitioner is 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.

¶13

The writ petition is thus disposed of.

¶14

………………………… … Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.

¶15

Ashok

Kanhu Charan Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhu Charan Das 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhansu Sekhar Mahana Vs Bhupendra Singh Poonia

Dr.Sasikanta Panigrahi Vs Director,North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology

Bhagatbata Behera Vs Bhupendra Singh Poonia

Janaki Behera Vs State of Odisha

Prassan Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Gourahari Jena Vs the State of Orissa