Dismissed

Mantu Ch.Paul and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC14 Dec 2023FAO/240/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the Tribunal's rejection of a claim for weighted seniority based on Grant-in-aid benefits. The Court noted a significant procedural delay by the appellants in approaching the Tribunal eight years after a High Court order permitting such approach. Held that the claim for retrospective benefits from 1988 was not entertained due to this delay and applicable order stipulations. Appeal d

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the impugned judgment of the State Education Tribunal stands maintained.

Mantu Ch.Paul and Ors. Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

FAO No.240 of 2012

¶3

Mantu Ch. Paul & Ors. …. Appellants Mr. K.C. Pradhan, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶6

…. Respondents Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

14.12.2023

Order No

05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶12

2. Heard Mr. K.C. Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Respondents.

¶13

3. The Appellants have filed the present appeal inter alia challenging Judgment dtd.25.03.2012 so passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short Tribunal) in GIA Case No. 353/2010.

¶14

4. It is contended that even though Appellants are entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid w.e.f.01.04.1988 and similarly situated staff working in other similarly situated schools were extended with the benefit of Grant-in-aid accordingly, but Appellants vide order dtd.06.07.1995 when were extended with the benefit of Grant-in-aid w.e.f.01.06.1994 in terms of GIA Order, 1994, approached this Court initially in OJC No.305 of 2001. This Court vide order dtd.19.08.2002 while disposing the writ petition, permitted the

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

Appellants to approach the Tribunal by filing appropriate application within a period of one (1) month from the date of order and for its disposal within a period of six(6) months thereafter. It is contended that in terms of the said order, Appellants approached the Tribunal by filing GIA Case No. 353/2010. But the Tribunal solely relying on Para 7 of the Grant-in-aid order, 1994 rejected the claim vide the impugned Judgment dtd.25.02.2012 under Annexure-11.

¶17

4.1. It is contended that since teaching and non-teaching staff of similarly situated institutions were extended with the benefit of Grant-in-aid from the date of their eligibility after presentation of four batch of students in the HSC examination, present Appellants though similarly situated were only extended with the benefit of Grant-in-aid w.e.f.01.06.1994 in terms of office order dtd.06.07.1995. It is contended that though similar issue was raised and discussed, but the Tribunal without giving a finding on the said issue rejected the claim solely relying on Para 7 of the GIA order, 1994. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal to take a fresh decision with regard to the stand taken by the Appellants regarding extension of similar benefits and the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Laxmidhar Pati & Ors. Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. reported in (1996) I OLR 152.

¶18

5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that Appellants were extended with the benefit of Grant-in-aid as per GIA Order, 1994 w.e.f.01.06.1994 vide order dtd.06.07.1995. It is contended that even though Appellants vide order dtd.06.07.1995 were allowed Grant-in-aid w.e.f.01.06.1994, but claiming extension of the Grant-in-aid w.e.f.01.04.1988, approached this Court in the year 2001 by filing OJC No. 305 of 2001. This Court vide order dtd.19.08.2002 though permitted the Appellants to file appropriate application before the Tribunal within a period of one (1) month

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

// 3 //

¶21

and for its consideration within a period of six (6) months thereafter, but as found from the record Appellants approached the Tribunal in the year 2010 i.e. more than 8 years of the order passed by this Court. Since the claim to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid was raised more than six years before this Court and more than eight years of the order passed by this Court before the Tribunal, Appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid w.e.f.01.04.1988 for such delayed approach. Not only that in view of the stipulation contained in para 7 of GIA Order, 1994, Appellants are not entitled to get the relief as claimed and the same has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal.

¶22

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the services of the Appellants were approved vide order dtd.06.07.1995, allowing them the benefit of GIA w.e.f.01.06.1994. The claim to get the benefit w.e.f.01.04.1988 was made only by filing OJC No. 305 of 2001, i.e. after about 6 years of the order. This Court vide order dtd.19.08.2002 though permitted the Appellant to approach the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of order, but the Tribunal was only approached in the year 2010, i.e. after 8 years. In view of such action of the Appellants in approaching this Court as well as the Tribunal with much delay without having any explanation to that effect and the stipulation in Para 7 of the GIA Order, 1994, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity with the impugned Judgment. This Court accordingly is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Judgment passed by the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal.

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Dec-2023 18:30:23

¶25

Sneha

¶26

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Mantu Ch.Paul and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantu Ch.Paul and Ors. v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chaitanya Kumar Mohanta Vs Sundarlal Seal

Kashinath Rout Vs Chitra Arumugam

Kailash Chandra Behera Vs Chitra Arumugam

Trailokya Garanayak Vs Prinmcipal-in-Charge-Cum-Secy.,Maharshi College of Natural Law

Amiya Ranjan Nayak Vs Aswathy S, I.A.S.

Rajlaxmi Das Mohapatra Vs Bishnupada Sethy, I.A.S.