Allowed

Sanjaya Ku.Naik v. State of Orissa

Orissa HC12 Apr 2023FAO/406/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed an appeal against a State Education Tribunal order that denied an appellant Block Grant benefits. The court held that retrospective regularization of the appellant's services made him eligible. It quashed the Tribunal's judgment and directed the Respondents to approve services and release the grant within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment of the State Education Tribunal was quashed and the Respondents were directed to approve the appellant's services and release the grant-in-aid within three months.

Sanjaya Ku.Naik Vs State of Orissa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. No.406 of 2017

¶2

Sanjay Kumar Naik

¶3

…. Appellant Mr. S.K. Das,Adv.

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Others

¶6

…. Respondents

¶7

Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA Mr. S.C. Dash, Adv. (for Respondent No.3)

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

12.04.2023

Order No

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

¶13

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Additional Govt. Advocate and Mr. S.C Dash, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3.

¶14

3. The Present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 09.10.2017 passed by the State Education Tribunal (hereinafter called <The Tribunal=) in G.I.A Case No.430 of 2013.

¶15

4. It is contended that the appellant filed G.I.A Case No.430 of 2013 challenging the inaction of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in not approving his appointment and consequential release of Block grant as per Grantin-Aid order, 2009. It is contended that the appellant was appointed as a Lecturer in Economics on a

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

Contractual basis with consolidated remuneration vide order dated 17.09.1997 in terms of the Governing body resolution No.127 dated 14.09.1997 under Annexure-2. The Petitioner in terms of the said order joined in the College on 17.09.1997 itself under Annexure-3.

¶18

4.1. It is contended that in terms of the Governing Body Resolution No.197 dated 21.02.1999, the appellant was appointed as against the post of Lecturer in Economics on temporary basis vide order dated 05.03.1999 under Annexure-4. It is contended that on introduction of grant-in-aid order 2009, when the services of the appellant was not approved with consequential release of grant-in-aid, the appellant moved the Tribunal in the aforesaid G.I.A case. But the Tribunal by taking a ground that since the appellant was substantially appointed as against the post of Lecturer in Economics vide order dated 05.03.1999 which is after the cut off date i.e. 20.04.1998, the appellant is not entitled to get the benefit of grant in aid. By holding so, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellant.

¶19

4.2. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that even though the appellant was initially appointed on contractual basis vide order dated 17.09.1997 and thereafter on temporary basis vide order dated 05.03.1999, but the appellant was treated to have been appointed on temporary basis w.e.f 17.09.1997 in terms of the Governing body Resolution dated 02.11.2010 under Annexure-5. Mr. Das, learned

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal by disbelieving such action of the Governing body with regard to approval of his services w.e.f 17.9.1997, denied the benefit while rejecting the application. It is contended that since the appellant is continuing as a Lecturer in Economics w.e.f 17.09.1997 which has been regularised by the Governing body in terms of the Resolution dated 02.11.2010, the appellant in view of the condition stipulated in para 3 of the Grant-in-aid order, 2009, is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of grant-in-aid and the Tribunal has illegally rejected the said claim vide the impugned judgment.

¶23

4.3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant also contended that on introduction of the grant-in-aid order 2009, Respondent No.2 also recommended the case of the appellant entitling him to get the benefit of grant-in-aid under G.I.A order of 2009 by holding the date of appointment of the appellant as 17.09.1997 as reflected under Annexure-8. It is accordingly contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶24

5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned counsel on the other hand contended that the appellant was initially appointed on contractual basis on 17.09.1997 and subsequently on temporary basis w.e.f 05.03.1999. Even though the services of the appellant was regularized by the Governing body w.e.f 17.09.1997 vide G.B. Resolution dated 02.11.2010 but the date of appointment of the appellant cannot be taken as 17.09.1997 as the

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

// 4 //

¶27

Governing Body passed such a resolution to overcome the stipulation contained in the order. Accordingly, it is contended that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal while rejecting the appellant’s claim.

¶28

6. Mr.S.C Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Governing Body-Respndent No.3 on the other hand by supporting the case of the appellant contended that even though the appellant was appointed on contractual basis vide order dated 17.09.1997 and on temporary basis vide order dated 05.03.1999 , but the appointment of the appellant w.e.f 17.09.1997 was regularised by the Governing body in its resolution dated 02.11.2010. It is also contended that the Director, Higher Education-Respondent No.2 on being satisfied with the action of the Governing body with regard to the appointment of the appellant on regular basis w.e.f 17.09.1997 recommended his case to receive Block Grant order under G.I.A order, 2009 vide Annexure-8. It is also contended that with regard to appointment and approval of service, Governing Body is competent to take the decision.

¶29

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is not disputed that the appellant was initially appointed as a Lecturer in Economics vide order dated 17.09.1997 under Annexure-2, though on contractual basis. It is also not disputed that the appellant was appointed on temporary basis w.e.f 05.03.1999 vide order under Annexure-4. The Governing body in his

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

// 5 //

¶32

proceeding dated 2.11.2010 also regularized the services of the appellant w.e.f 17.09.1997. Since the appointment of the appellant has been regularised w.e.f 17.09.1997, the plea taken by the Tribunal that the appellant since has been apponted on regular basis after the cut off date, is not entitled to get the benefit of Block Grant as per the considered view of this Court is not just and proper as well as not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, while interfering with the impugned judgment dt.09.10.2017, this Court is inclined to quash the same. While quashing the same, this Court directs Respondent No.1 & 2 to approve the services of the appellant as against the post of Lecturer in Economics and take consequential action for release of the grant in aid as per grant-in-aid Order,2009. Such action shall be undertaken and completed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶33

The FAO is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

¶34

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶35

sangita

¶36

Page 5 of 5

Sanjaya Ku.Naik v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjaya Ku.Naik v. State of Orissa

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

Begum Benazin Bibi Vs Rupa Rosan Sahoo, IAS

Muralidhar Sahoo Vs Aswathy S., IAS

Jitendra Kumar Choudhury Vs State of Odisha

State Vs M.C,Balunnkeswar Dev

Sanyasi Charan Patra Vs State

State Vs Satchida N.Panigrahi