Quashed

State of Odisha v. Menaka Parida

Orissa HC26 Apr 2023FAO/250/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court quashed the State Education Tribunal order directing stoppage of appellants'’ salary. The Tribunal is permitted to proceed with the execution case, and appellants were directed to comply with the principal order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order directing salary stoppage; directed appellants to comply with original order in 3 months; respondent to withdraw execution case in 7 days.

State of Odisha Vs Menaka Parida — Execution and Attachment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

FAO No.250 of 2019

¶3

State of Odisha & Others

¶4

…. Appellants Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Menaka Parida

¶7

…. Respondent Mr.B.B. Mohanty, Advocate

¶8

COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

26.04.2023

Order No

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

¶13

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. B.B. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the private Respondent.

¶14

3. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 01.02.2019 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in Execution Case No.25 of 2015.

¶15

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that seeking execution of the judgment so passed by the Tribunal on 24.12.2013 in GIA Case No.321 of 2011, the present respondent filed Execution Case No.25 of 2015. In the said execution case, when the Tribunal passed an order directing for stoppage of the salary of the present Appellant Nos.1 and 2 from the month of March, 2019, the present appeal was filed challenging such order of the Tribunal.

¶16

4.1. Learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the Tribunal while executing the order in question, has no

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

authority to direct for stoppage of the salary of appellants Nos.1 and 2 and accordingly the said order is not sustainable. It is contended that considering the plea raised by the appellants, this Court vide order dated 02.08.2019 stayed the operation of the said order.

¶19

5. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Respondent contended that against an order passed in execution case, no appeal is maintainable and because of the pendency of this appeal, the Tribunal is also not proceeding with the matter in Execution Case No.25/2015.

¶20

5.1 . Mr. Mohanty learned counsel for the Respondent contended that challenging the judgment passed by the Tribunal on 24.12.2013, the present appellants approached this Court in FAO No.587 of 2015. This Court vide order dated 14.12.2017 was not inclined to entertain the said appeal on the ground of limitation and accordingly dismissed the appeal. It is further contented by Mr. Mohanty that no further challenge was made to the order dated 14.12.2017 by the appellants and accordingly the order passed by the Tribunal on 24.12.2013 has attained the finality in the eye of law.

¶21

6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and taking into account the stand taken in the appeal, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal committed an error in directing for stoppage of the salary of the appellant Nos.1 and 2 from the month of March, 2019 vide order dated 01.02.2019. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to quash the said order. While quashing the same, this Court when was inclined to permit the Tribunal to proceed with the execution case and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Mr. Samal, learned Addl. Government Advocate

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

contended that if this Court will allow three months time to the appellants, the order in question will be complied with.

¶25

6.1. Considering such submission made by the learned Addl. Government Advocate, this Court directs the appellants to comply with the order passed by the Tribunal on 24.12.2013 in GIA Case No.321 of 2011 within a period of three months from today.

¶26

7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Respondent is directed to file an application to withdraw of the execution case within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of this order. On production of the certified copy of this order before the Tribunal, the execution case shall be treated as dropped.

¶27

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the FAO stands disposed of.

¶28

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge

¶29

Subrat

¶30

Page 3 of 3

State of Odisha v. Menaka Parida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Menaka Parida

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

Smc of Ch. Kanamana Pry. School, Ganjam Vs Anupama Saha, IAS

Sumanta Kumar Pradhan Vs Aswathy S, IAS

Juicy Kesh Vs State of Odisha

Managing Committee of Nikirai Girls High School Vs State of Orissa

State of Orissa Vs Managing Committee of Biju Pattnaik High School

Biswajit Parida Vs Aswathy S., Principal Secy., S and Me Dept.