Harekrishna Parida Vs State of Odisha

Heard Mr. Gourab Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶15

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging order dtd.28.11.2017 so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-13. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of UGC scale of pay was rejected inter alia holding that the Petitioner since got the benefit of Grant-in-aid after the cut-off date i.e.01.04.1989, he is not eligible and entitled to get the same, in view of the decision in the case of State of Odisha & Anr. Vs. Aswini Kumar Dash & Ors., (1998) 3 SCC 613.

¶16

3.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that vide the impugned order claim of the Petitioner has been rejected with a plea that Petitioner was initially selected and appointed by the Governing

¶17

Page 1 of 4.

¶18

Body of Gopabandhu Science College, Athgarh and since he got the benefit of Grant-in-aid w.e.f.01.06.1991, which is after the cut-off date, he is not eligible to get the benefit of UGC Scale of pay.

¶19

3.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was in fact appointed as a Lecturer in Odia by the Governing Body, SSD College of Science & Technology, Bali vide office order dtd.10.04.1986 under Annexure-2 and his services was also approved as against the said post in SSD College of Science & Technology, Bali by the Director, Higher Education vide order dtd.22.11.1995 under Annexure-3. Vide the said order Petitioner was held entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid @ 1/3^rd from 01.06.1991.

¶20

3.3. It is contended that since Petitioner was appointed by the Governing Body of SSD College of Science & Technology, Bali, vide office order dtd.06.04.1982 under Annexure-2 and his services was also approved as against the said post by the Director, Higher Education vide order dtd.22.11.1995 under Annexure-3, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim that he was appointed in Gopabandhu Science College, Athgarh is completely misconceived.

¶21

3.4. It is contended that since the Petitioner was appointed by the Governing Body of the SSD College of Science & Technology, Bali and his services was also approved accordingly, rejection of his claim on the ground that Petitioner was appointed by the Governing Body of Gopabandhu Science College, Athgarh and he received Grant-in-aid w.e.f.01.06.1991, which is after the cut-off date is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision

¶22

Page 2 of 4.

¶23

taking into account the appointment of the Petitioner in SSD College of Science & Technology, Bali.

¶24

Even though notice of the writ petition has been issued since 24.01.2018, but no counter affidavit has been filed, but after going through the impugned order, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate fairly contended that Petitioner was appointed as against the post of Lecturer in Odia in SSD College of Science & Technology, Bali vide office order dtd.10.04.1986 under Annexure-2 and his services was approved as against the said post in SSD College vide order dtd.22.11.1995 under Annexure-3.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as against the post of Lecturer in Odia vide order of appointment issued by the Governing Body, SSD College of Science & Technology, Bali on 10.04.1986 under Annexure-2, services of the Petitioner was also approved as against the said post w.e.f.01.06.1991 vide order dtd.22.11.1995 so issued by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-3.

¶26

5.1. On the face of the order of appointment issued in favour of the Petitioner and its approval, it is found that Opp. Party No. 1 while considering the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of UGC Scale of Pay, has taken the appointment of the Petitioner by the Governing Body of Gopabandhu Science College, Athgarh, which is not a fact. In view of such apparent error so reflected in the impugned order, this Court is inclined to quash the office order dtd.27.11.2018 under Annexure-13. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision taking into account the appointment of the Petitioner in SSD College

¶27

Page 3 of 4.

¶28

of Science & Technology, Bali on 10.04.1986 and his approval vide order dtd.22.11.1995 under Annexure-3. Such a fresh decision be taken as directed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶31

Sneha

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Apr-2024 10:46:09

¶34

Page 4 of 4.

Harekrishna Parida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harekrishna Parida v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lajrus Kujur Vs State of Orissa

Bijay Kumar Rout Vs Susant Kumar Patra,Principal Govt. Poly Technic,Bbsr

M.Raja Rao Vs State of Odisha

Surendra Panda Vs State of Odisha

Joydeep Dey Vs State of Odisha

Ranjan Kumar Panda Vs Aswathy. S, I.A.S.