Remanded

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Nov 2022WP(C)/27543/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Odisha disposed of a writ petition seeking extension of leave, pensionary, and GPF benefits for a teacher in a block grant-funded institution. Relying on Ritanjali Giri, the court remitted the matter to the authority for consideration of other benefits within four months without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

The matter remitted to the authority for consideration of extension of other benefits within four months.

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 27543 of 2022

¶3

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan

¶4

….. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

….. Opposite parties Standing Counsel S&ME

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶11

ORDER 18.11.2022

¶12

Order No. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.

¶13

¶14

Heard Mr. M.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the

¶15

petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department.

¶16

The petitioner has filed this application seeking 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 benefits under the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions’ Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 and GPF benefit under the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees’ General Provident Funds Rules, 1983, as he is an employee of an aided educational institution.

¶17

Mr. M.K. Sahoo, 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

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

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 petitioner.

¶20

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 01.09.2019, 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

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.

¶24

The writ petition is thus disposed of.

¶25

Alok

¶26

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
Judge

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan 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

Aswini Kumar Mishra Vs Aswathy S., Commnr Cum Secy, S and Me Dept

Nirmal Kumar Mishra Vs Union of India

Sunita Biswal Vs Saswat Mishra, IAS

Ser Alli Khan Vs Aswathy S, I.A.S.

Kamalakanta Laha Vs Aswathy S, I.A.S.

Jagadish Prasad Pattanaik Vs Aswathy S, I.A.S.