Orissa High Court
WP(C)/11189/2021 on 30 March, 2021
WP(C) NO. 11189 of 2021
02. 30.03.2021 The matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
(virtual/physical mode).
Heard Mr. J. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.
Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education
Department.
The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to the
opposite parties to treat the petitioner at par with the employees of
other aided educational institutions, who have been extended with
grant-in-aid in accordance with Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994, and
accordingly extend all benefits as applicable to the aided educational
institutions within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education
Act, such as earned leaves as prescribed under Rule 9 of 1977 Rules,
extra ordinary leaves as prescribed under Rule 12 of 1977 Rules, as well
as study leaves as prescribed under Rule 13 of 1977 Rules and other
benefits as provided under 1977 Rules, Pension Rules, GPF Rules,
though the same facilities and benefits were given to the employees of
other institutions, which were notified under Section 3(b) of the Orissa
Education Act, 1969 pursuant to Grant-in-Aid Order, 1994.
Mr. J. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
that since the petitioner is working in an educational institution
receiving block grant, in view of the judgment passed in Ritanjali Giri
@ Paul v. State of Odisha (School & M.E. Deptt.) & others, 2016 (I)
ILR-1162 wherein this Court has already held that the legal heirs of
deceased employees of educational institutions receiving block grant are
entitled to get compassionate appointment, pursuant to which the
Government of Odisha in the Department of School & Mass Education
has issued a circular on 01.08.2019 granting benefit of compassionate
appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employees working in
fully aided educational institutions and educational institutions
receiving grant-in-aid (New)/block grant, therefore, other benefits as
claimed in the writ application should be extended to the petitioner.
2
Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass
Education Department contended that in view of law laid down in
Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra) although benefit of compassionate
appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employees of educational
institutions receiving block grant has already been extended by the
State Government, pursuant to letter dated 01.08.2019, but so far as
other claims as made in this writ application, the petitioner is not
entitled to get the same, as because the benefit of Grant-in-Aid Order,
1994 was denied by this Court in State of Odisha v. Sri Lokanath
Behera, 2018 (II) OLR 932, which has been confirmed by the apex
Court in Civil Appeal No. 7295 of 2019 arising out of SLP(C) No. 8343 of
2019 disposed of on 16.09.2019.
Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the
parties and after going through the record, this Court is of the
considered view that since the benefit of compassionate appointment to
the legal heirs of deceased employees of educational institutions
receiving block grant has already been extended by the authority, vide
circular dated 01.08.2019, therefore, without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, the matter is remitted back to the authority
concerned for consideration with regard to extension of other benefits as
claimed in the writ application taking into account the ratio decided in
Ritanjali Giri @ Paul (supra) within a period of four months from the
date of communication of this order. Needless to mention, if it is found
that the petitioner is entitled to get all the benefits, as claimed in the
writ application in consonance with the law laid down in Ritanjali Giri
@ Paul (supra), the same shall be granted within the time stipulated.
The writ petition is thus disposed of.
Alok ................................
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.
