Orissa High Court
Rama Chandra Dash vs State Of Odisha And Others on 24 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No. 4257 of 2016
Rama Chandra Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
-Versus -
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. B. Prusty,
Standing Counsel S&ME
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
24.08.2021
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to
quash the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by the Controller of
Accounts, Odisha rejecting his claim for counting his service
period from 24.09.1971 to 26.09.1979 for the purpose of grant
of pension, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to
count his service period from 24.09.1971 to 26.09.1979 as
qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension. He
further seeks direction to the opposite parties to grant full
pension, as he has rendered more than 33 years of service in
both aided high school and government high school and his
pension may be enhanced and differential arrear pension may
be calculated and paid to him within a stipulated time.
3. Mr. K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that similar matter had come up for consideration
before the tribunal in O.A. No.3935(C) of 2016 (Baidyanath
Nayak v. State of Odisha and others) which was disposed
vide order dated 16.12.2016 directing the authority to consider
the grievance of the petitioner therein in the light of the
judgment passed in O.A. No.755 of 2011 (Krushna Chandra
Das v. State of Orissa, disposed of on 05.09.2013). Therefore,
the petitioner having stood in the same footing, direction may
be given to the authority to consider the case of the petitioner
in the light of the aforesaid orders passed by the tribunal.
4. Mr. B. Prusty, learned Standing Counsel for School
and Mass Education Department raised preliminary objection
with regard to maintainability of the original application
before the tribunal and contended that though the order of
rejection was passed on 23.09.2013 vide Annexure-3, but the
petitioner had approached the tribunal in the year 2016, which
is beyond the limitation period prescribed under the
Limitation Act. In any case, since it is stated that the case of
the petitioner is covered by the orders passed by the tribunal,
let direction may be issued to the authority to examine the
case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance
with law.
5. Considering the contention raised by learned counsel
for the parties and after going through the records, while
quashing order dated 23.09.2013 in Annexure-3, this writ
petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a
fresh representation highlighting all his grievances enclosing
the orders passed by the tribunal in O.A. No.3935(C) of 2016
(Baidyanath Nayak v. State of Odisha and others) as well as
the judgment passed by the tribunal in Krushna Chandra Das
mentioned supra before the opposite party no.4 within two
weeks hence. If such an application is filed, opposite party
no.4 shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of three months from the date of filing of such
representation.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
Ashok (Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
Judge
