Orissa High Court
Heard Mr. A.K.Parija vs Unknown on 8 April, 2021
W.A. No.427 of 2020
02. 08.04.2021 I.A. No.843 of 2020
This matter is taken up by Video Conferencing mode.
This is an application for dispensing with filing of
certified copy of the impugned order dated 29.11.2019 passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23455 of 2019.
Heard.
For the reasons stated in the I.A., filing of certified
copy of the impugned order is dispensed with for the time
being.
The I.A. is disposed of, accordingly.
........................
(S. K. Mishra)
Judge
.........................
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
03. 08.04.2021 I.A. No.1277 of 2020
Heard Mr. A.K.Parija, learned Advocate General for
the Appellants-State and Mr. S. Jena, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.1.
This is an application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay 198 days in
preferring the W.A.
Mr. A.K.Parija, learned Advocate General submits
that delay has been occurred because of the official process of
taking of cases.
WE are satisfied that the delay in filing the W.A.
could not have been made deliberately and the Appellants/State
have shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Hence, the prayer for condonation of delay in
preferring the W.A. is allowed. Accordingly, delay in filing the
W.A. is condoned.
The I.A. is disposed of.
........................
(S. K. Mishra)
Judge
.........................
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
04. 08.04.2021 W.A. No.427 of 2020
Heard Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Advocate General for
the Appellants-State and Mr. S. Jena, learned counsel for the
Respondent No.1.
In course of hearing, our attention is drawn to the
observations made by the learned Single Judge in the case of
Sarat Chandra Parida -vrs.- State of Odisha (W.P.(C)
No.16425 of 2013) which are quoted below:
"Xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx. It is apparent
from a plain reading of Rule-3 that the expression,
"come under the direct payment system" qualifies
the institution (college/school) concerned and not a
particular staff of the institution."
The order passed in W.P.(C) No.16425 of 2013 was challenged
by the State of Odisha before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SLP(C)CC No.761 of 2016 which was dismissed on the ground
of limitation. Basing on the reasoning assigned in the order
dated 20.08.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.22316 of 2018, the
impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge.
However, similar question was preferred before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Odisha and Another -
vrs.- Anup Kumar Senapati and Another: reported in (2019)
19 SCC 626, wherein at paragraph 37, it has been held as
follows:
"Considering the various provisions of Section 7-C
of the Act and the 1994 Order, it is apparent that
institutions which received grant-in-aid and post
with respect of which grant-in-aid was being
released, have been saved. The reference of the
institution means and includes the posts. They
cannot be read in isolatioin. It cannot be said that
right to claim grant-in-aid has been fixed, accrued,
settled, absolute or complete at the time of the repeal
of the 2004 Order.
Xx xx xx xx xx xx"
At paragraph 39 of the said judgment, taking note of the facts
that the orders have been passed by the Tribunal, which was
affirmed by the High Court and grants-in-aid have been
released under the 1994 Order as such on the ground of parity,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there had been a
divergence of opinion on the aforesaid issue. But, in the
considered opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no
concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
Hence, we are inclined to issue notice in this matter.
Since the Respondent No.1 has already entered
appearance, no notice be issued to him.
So far as Opposite Party No.2 is concerned, issue
notice to Opposite Party No.2 through Registered Post with
A.D./ Speed Post returnable within four weeks. Postal requisites
shall be filed within seven working days hence.
List this matter on 13th May, 2021.
........................
(S. K. Mishra)
Judge
.........................
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
05. 08.04.2021 I.A. No.844 of 2020
Heard.
Issue notice as above.
Accept one set of process fee.
In the interim, it is directed that operation of the
impugned order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.23455 of 2019 shall remain stayed till the
next date.
As the restrictions due to the Covid-19 situation are
continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft
copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print
out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed,
vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020.
........................
(S. K. Mishra)
Judge
.........................
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
BJ
