Quashed

BHAGIRATHi Lenka v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC21 Dec 2023WP(C)/23712/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of a claim for Headmaster scale of pay, the High Court of Orissa inclined to quash the impugned order. The Court directed the opposite party to take a fresh decision based on referenced precedents within three months before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Opposite party directed to take fresh decision within 3 months based on cited orders; writ petition disposed of on those terms.

BHAGIRATHi Lenka Vs State of Odisha — Education and Admissions | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.23712 of 2015

¶3

Bhagirathi Lenka

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. B. Dash, Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

21.12.2023

Order No

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

¶14

2. Heard Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶15

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the order dtd.22.07.2015 so passed by the Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-4. Vide the said order the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of Headmaster scale of pay w.e.f.01.06.1994 was rejected.

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was appointed as against the post of Headmaster vide order under Annexure-1 dtd.11.07.1989, where he joined on 14.07.1989. The School was notified as an aided educational institution w.e.f.01.06.1994 and Petitioner’s service was approved as Headmaster-in-Charge vide order dtd.03.04.1997, by the Inspector

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

of Schools, Mayurbhanj under Annexure-3. But Petitioner when was not extended with the Headmaster scale w.e.f.01.06.1994, when the school became aided, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 355 of 2015. This Court vide order dtd.05.05.2015 while disposing the matter directed the Opp. Parties to consider the claim of the Petitioner. But the claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.22.07.2015 under Annexure-4.

¶19

4.1. However, it is contended that Petitioner at the time of his appointment since was untrained, he acquired the B.Ed. training, the result of which was published on 23.06.1990. It is contended that in view of the Board’s regulation issued in the year 1977, vide Regulation 17(2) of Chapter-IX, since for appointment of Headmaster, a trained graduate in Arts or Science with minimum 7 (seven) years of experience after training is necessary, Petitioner since acquired the B.Ed. on 23.06.1990, he became eligible to get the benefit of Headmaster scale of pay w.e.f.23.06.1997.

¶20

4.2. It is contended that similar issue was before this Court in the case of Purna Chandra Chand Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 456 of 2013). Basing on the order passed on 24.04.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 456 of 2013, Petitioner therein has got the benefit of Headmaster scale of pay for the period he worked as Headmaster-in-Charge. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires reconsideration by Opp. Party No. 1.

¶21

5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate does not dispute the submission made by Mr. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. However, it is contended that Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 456 of 2013 was extended with the benefit of Headmaster scale

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

of pay in terms of the order passed on 31.05.2021, in RVWPET No. 255 of 2013, so filed against order dtd.24.04.2013.

¶25

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.22.07.2015 so passed by the Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-4. While quashing the same, this Court dispose of the writ petition with a direction on the Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the order passed on 24.04.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 456 of 2013 and subsequent order passed by this Court on 31.05.2021 in Review Petition No. 255 of 2013. Such a fresh decision be taken by Opp. Party No. 1 within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to file a copy of this order along with the order passed on 24.04.2013 and 31.05.2021 before Opp. Party

¶26

No. 1 for compliance.

¶27

7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶29

Sneha

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2023 17:41:50

¶32

Page 3 of 3

BHAGIRATHi Lenka v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

BHAGIRATHi Lenka 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

Supriya Nanda Vs Aswasti S., I.A.S.

Ratha Natha Vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

Basant Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Nrusingha Ch.Pradhan Vs G.v.v.Sharma

Prasanta Ku.Mohanty Vs Jahana Ara Begum

Dr.Prof.Banchanidhi Mishra Vs Bishnupada Sethi