Jayaprakash Dash Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.

¶17

By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner in Execution Case No.257 of 2018 pending before the learned State Education Tribunal has approached this Court for a direction to the tribunal to expedite the execution case and to conclude the same in a time bound manner and as expeditiously as possible.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that initially the Petitioner approached the State Education Tribunal by filing an application which was registered as G.I.A. Case No.1012 of 2012. Such application was initially disposed of by the State Education Tribunal vide judgment dated 09.01.2018, thereby

¶19

Page 1 of 4.

¶20

allowing the G.I.A. application of the Petitioner with a direction to the Opposite Parties to release the block grant in favour of the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.2009 under the G.I.A. Order 2009. Further, the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 were directed to appointment the applicant as a lecturer in English and to release the grant-in-aid under the G.I.A. Order 1994 w.e.f. 01.06.1998, 01.06.2000, 01.06.2002 in this manner as has been directed in the order at Annexure-1 to the writ application.

¶21

Although, order dated 09.01.2018 passed by the learned State Education Tribunal was assailed before this Court by the StateOpposite Parties by filing FAO No.31 of 2022, however, a Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the FAO vide order dated 11.05.2023 at Annexure-2, thereby dismissing the FAO on the ground of limitation itself. Being aggrieved by such order of this Court passed in the abovenoted FAO, the State-Opposite Parties have preferred an SLP bearing SLP (C) No.29602 of 2025. It is stated at bar that such SLP still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for adjudication.

¶22

The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application is that although a Coordinate Bench in the earlier writ application bearing W.P.(C) No.20443 of 2024 disposed of on 14.11.2024 directed the tribunal to expedite the Execution Case No.257 of 2018 and to conclude the same within a period of three months, the abovenoted Execution Case is still pending. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the learned tribunal the Petitioner has once again approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that

¶24

Page 2 of 4.

¶25

the State-Opposite Parties have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed by the tribunal which was confirmed by this Court. He further submitted that since the SLP is pending, it would not be fair and proper to direct the Education Tribunal to proceed with the Execution Case. Both the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State admitted before this Court that no interim order has been passed in the abovenoted SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶26

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking note of the fact that initially application of the Petitioner was allowed by the State Education Tribunal which was eventually confirmed by this Court and finally being aggrieved by such order the State has preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is required to consider the prayer of the Petitioner keeping in view the aforesaid development. It is evident that no interim order has been passed in the pending SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there exists no embargo in law, so far the State Education Tribunal is concerned, to proceed with the execution case.

¶27

Moreover, the order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench on 14.11.2024 is staring at the Execution Court. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application by directing the learned State Education Tribunal to make every endeavour to expedite the Execution Case and to make every endeavour to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months after providing an opportunity of hearing to both sides. However, it is

¶28

Page 3 of 4.

¶29

further made clear that since the State-Opposite Parties have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing an SLP, the outcome of the execution proceeding shall be subject to the final outcome of the abovenoted SLP.

¶30