Arati Pattanaik Vs State of Odisha

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

¶17

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶18

“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed; And

¶19

(A) a writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ may be issued directing the opposite parties more particularly to the Governing Body of the College - opposite party No.5 to refund / release the deducted amount of Rs.2,80,363/- in favour of the petitioner along with interest, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;

¶20

Page 1 of 4.

¶21

(B) And any other order / orders or direction / directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the petitioner.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner who was working as lecturer in logic and philosophy under Opposite Party No.5 has approached this Court with a prayer for direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the differential amount which has not been paid from out of the block grant which was sanctioned in her favour. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to various documents demonstrated before this court that although a sum of Rs.58,380/- towards current block grant and Rs.3,00,240/towards arrear block grant were released in favour of the institution, to be eventually released in favour of the Petitioner, however the Opposite Party No.5 has paid a sum of only Rs.16,130/- & Rs.61,557/- respectively. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Party No.5, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 4 by filing a several representations. He further submitted that the Special Secretarycum-Director to the Government vide letter dated 15.02.2020 at Annexure-8 called for an explanation from the principal of the institution in question. Thereafter, vide letter dated 19.08.2021 at Anenxure-9, the Opposite Party No.4 requested the Sub Collector-cum-Governing Body of the institution in question to look into the grievance of the Petitioner. Finally, vide letter dated 05.11.2022 as per Anenxure-10, the Govt. of Odisha in the Department of Higher Education categorically instructed the

¶23

Page 2 of 4.

¶24

principal of all non-government aided colleges that there is no such provision and the grant-in-aid order to deduct any amount from the block grant of the teaching faculties. In the meantime, the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2022.

¶25

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after her retirement although the Petitioner has been approaching the Opposite Parties for disbursal of the aforesaid amount which has been illegally deducted, however no effective steps have been taken in the meantime to ensure that the Petitioner gets back the differential amount that has been deducted illegally by the Opposite Party No.5-Instituion.

¶26

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, taking into consideration the fact that the matter is pending before the Opposite Party No.4 and as it appears that no final decision has been taken by the Opposite Party No.4, he further submitted that he will have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.4 to resolve the dispute within a stipulated period of time, in accordance with law.

¶27

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides, on a careful examination of the he background facts, further taking note of the documents annexed to the writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application at stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party

¶28

Page 3 of 4.

¶29

No.4 taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.4 shall make every endeavour to resolve the dispute and to ensure that in the event the Petitioner is entitled to the differential amount, as claimed by her, and keeping in view the instruction of the Government vide letter dated 05.11.2022 at Anenxure-10, the Opposite Party No.4 shall dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and resonated order. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is entitled to the differential amount and there is no other legal impediment, necessary follow-up action shall be taken to ensure that such amount is paid to the Petitioner within four weeks from the date of taking such decision.

¶30