Quashed

Sudarshan Mohakur v. State

Orissa HC5 Apr 2023FAO/168/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court, while hearing an appeal against a judgment by the State Education Tribunal that quashed the appellant's service approval, chose to quash the impugned Tribunal judgment. The Court clarified that quashing does not grant financial benefits, only due service benefits, considering subsequent grant-in-aid for both parties.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the judgment of the State Education Tribunal is allowed; the Tribunal's judgment is quashed; but the appellant is not entitled to financial benefits, only due service benefits.

Sudarshan Mohakur Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

FAO No.168 of 2007

¶3

Sudarshan Mohakur

¶4

…. Appellant Mr. D.N. Rath, Adv.

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Others …. Respondents R.N. Mishra, AGA

¶7

COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

05.04.2023

Order No

07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶12

2. Heard Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. None appears for the Respondent No.5 in spite of due appearance.

¶13

3. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 15.03.2007 passed by the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, Odisha in G.I.A Case No.149/2004.

¶14

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the services of the appellant as against the 1st post of Peon was approved by the Inspector of School vide Order No.10603 dated 26.09.2004. The approval of the services of the appellant was challenged by the private respondent before the Tribunal in the aforesaid GIA Case No.149 of 2004. The Tribunal when vide the impugned judgment quashed the order of approval so passed in favour of the appellant with a further direction to approve the

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

appointment of the private respondent, the present appeal was filed challenging the said judgment.

¶17

5. It is contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter passed an interim order on 14.05.2007 staying the operation of the impugned order dated 15.03.2007. Subsequently, in terms of the order passed by this Court on 31.08.2012 in Misc. Case No.447 of 2012, the appellant as well as the private respondent No.5 were extended with the benefit of grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.04.2008.

¶18

It is also contended that while in receipt of such grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.04.2008, private respondent No.5 has retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶19

6. Mr. Rath, further contended that the order of approval so passed in favour of the appellant on 26.09.2004 allowing him the benefit of grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.01.2004 was never recalled or withdrawn by the StateRespondents. Since the services of Respondent No.5 was approved and he was released with the benefit of grant-inaid w.e.f.01.01.2008, the order passed by the Tribunal is no more sustainable.

¶20

7. Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand contended that even though the services of the appellant was approved w.e.f. 01.01.2004, but since the said order was quashed by the Tribunal and the appellant as well as Respondent No.5 were allowed the benefit of grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.04.2008 in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 31.08.2012, the appellant has no further grievance.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

8. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and taking into account the fact that the services of the private respondent was also approved with release of grant-in-aid w.e.f. 01.04.2008 and taking into account the fact that the services of the appellant was earlier approved w.e.f. 01.01.2004, this Court while interfering with the impugned judgment is inclined to quash the same. However, it is observed that quashing of the order will not entitle the appellant to get any financial benefit save and except any service benefit as due and admissible.

¶24

Subrat

¶25

Accordingly, the FAO stands disposed of with the
aforesaid clarification.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge

¶26

Page 3 of 3

Sudarshan Mohakur v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarshan Mohakur v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranab Kumar Samantaray Vs State of Odisha

Tara Prasana Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha

Padmabati Behera Vs Vishwanath Singh Jadon, I.A and a.S,a.G.,Odisha

State Vs Alok Ch.Mohanty

Radha Mohan Kanhar Vs State

State Vs Mc,Maa Bhuasunibidya