Amaresh Rout Vs State of Odisha

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶17

“Under the above circumstances it is therefore

¶18

humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to direct the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to approve the appointment of the petitioner and to release grant-in-aid in his favour w.e.f. 01.06.1994 to 31.05.2006 notionally and actual financial benefits be granted w.e.f. 01.06.2006 with all consequential financial and service benefits and/or be please to direct the State Education Tribunal to dispose of the Execution Case No. 116 of 2013 within a stipulated. time as deem fit and proper;

¶19

Page 1 of 4.

¶20

And further the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties to calculate the differential arrears and to pay the same to the petitioner with interest @ 7% per annum within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper,

¶21

And/or issue any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case.”

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that being aggrieved by the inaction of the learned State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. He further contended that the G.I.A Case which was filed initially was registered as G.I.A case No.16 of 2009 was disposed of on 20.10.2012. As against the same, an appeal was preferred by the Respondent before this Court bearing FAO No.459 of 2015 which was dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2015. Thereafter, the State-Opposite Parties preferred SLP bearing SLP(C) No.15467 of 2019. The abovenoted SLP was converted to Civil Appeal No.2440 of 2017 and has been disposed of in the meantime vide order dated 06.02.2017 directing the State to restrict the payment of grant-in-aid to the employees three years prior to the date of approval. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that the order passed by the learned Execution Tribunal being modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is required to be executed by the learned Tribunal. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in the meantime the Petitioner after disposal of the Civil Appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court approached the learned Tribunal again by filing an application for restoration of the Execution Case No.116 of 2013 which was subsequently restored. The sole grievance of the Petitioner is that the Execution Case has been

¶23

Page 2 of 4.

¶24

restored in the meantime and the same has been taken up by the learned Tribunal, however, the same is being adjourned from one date to the other. As a result, the Petitioner has been left, high and dry. He further submitted that the Petitioner is going to retire very shortly. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned tribunal be directed to expedite the hearing of the execution case and conclude the same in a time bound manner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the execution case which is pending before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the Petitioner should approach the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is not maintainable.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts and further taking note of the fact that the order passed by the Tribunal was eventually upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court subject to certain modification, the same is required to be implemented by the authorities. However, the fact remains that the same has not been implemented and the execution case filed by the Petitioner is still pending for adjudication before the learned Tribunal. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ application by directing the learned State Education Tribunal to make every endeavour to consider and dispose of the execution case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months. Further taking note of the fact that the matter is pending for more than one and half decade, the parties are

¶27

Page 3 of 4.

¶28

directed to appear before the learned State Education Tribunal on 19.01.2026. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-Opposite Parties assures this Court that necessary cooperation shall be provided by the State-Opposite Parties in the Execution Case.

¶29

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶30

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

¶31

Anil

¶32

Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4.

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:26:26

Amaresh Rout v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amaresh Rout 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

Amulya Kumar Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Kamal Kumar Jena Vs Gouranga Swain

Amita Dalai Vs Ramesh Naik

Ashok Kumar Bhoi Vs Vice Chancellor, Revenshaw University Cuttack

Amulya Kumar Rout Vs State of Odisha

Sarat Kumar Panda Vs Nilamadhab Jena