Smruti Ranjan Behera Vs State of Odisha

It is stated in the affidavit that there is no proof of receipt of the letter seeking leave by the petitioner being forwarded by the Headmaster of the school. Copy of the issue register from 1996 to 2019-20 of the school certified by the present Headmaster and the Block Education Officer, Champua has been enclosed to the affidavit in support of such contentions.

¶16

These are factual aspects of which this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction would not ordinarily take cognizance. Fact remains that the Headmaster has certified to have forwarded the leave application of the petitioner to the Block Education Officer. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the Headmaster. It is

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

therefore, held that the petitioner had applied for leave, which was forwarded by the Headmaster to the Block Education Officer.

¶19

In course of hearing, Mr. A.K.Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, confines his prayer to count the period of absence notionally for the purpose of career benefits under the career Advancement Scheme.

¶20

In the impugned order dated 29.05.2018, the following was observed by the Collector:

¶21

“That as per terms and conditions laid down at Para No. 9.5 of the Resolution No. 18668/SME Dtd. 06.08.2013 “Untrained candidates selected as per the relaxed standard shall have to furnish an affidavit at the time of engagement to the effect that they shall acquire the required training qualification within the stipulated period in accordance with the provision of the Act or as decided by the Govt. of India from time to time. Candidates unable to acquire the training qualification within the stipulated period shall be disengaged automatically.” Accordingly, the Engagement Order vide No. 958 Dtd. 03.09.2014 has been issued to the Petitioner with a condition that the untrained candidates will complete the required training qualification within the stipulated period i.e. 31^st March, 2015.

¶22

In view of the above, Mr. Smruti Ranjan Behera is hereby allowed to join in his parent post at Kankadapat Primary School under Champua Block subject to condition that he will execute an fresh agreement for subsequent one year and no remuneration shall be claimed during the absence period and the absence period will not be counted for Career Advancement Policy/ service benefit of the Sikshya Sahayak.”

¶23

Since this Court has already held that the petitioner had applied for leave at the relevant time, which was duly forwarded by the Headmaster there is no reason as to why he shall be blamed for the inaction of the Block Education Officer and the concerned authorities in granting the same at the relevant time. Nevertheless,

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

having regard to the fact that the petitioner had not rendered to any work to the establishment during the relevant period, he shall not be entitled to any financial benefit for the said period on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. But it would be iniquitous to take away that period entirely from his career as it would adversely affect his claim for other service benefits like Career Advancement Scheme.

¶26

The writ application is therefore, disposed of by modifying the order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the Collector, Keonjhar only to the extent that the period of absence of the petitioner shall be counted for career advancement policy/service benefits of the scheme.

¶27

It goes without saying that the benefits under the career advancement policy shall be granted to the petitioner as early as possible preferably, within a period of 3 months from date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.

¶28

( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

¶29

deepak

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 17-Jan-2025 15:33:33

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Smruti Ranjan Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smruti Ranjan Behera 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annapurna Sahoo Vs Govt of Odisha

Sivram Kewat Vs State of Odisha

Augastin Joseph Vs Union of India

Sudhansu Bariha Vs State of Odisha

Laxmi Nandini Madhi Vs State of Odisha

Dipti @Deepti Lima Vs State of Odisha