Orissa High Court
Namita Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others on 28 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No. 2442 of 2017
Namita Behera ..... Petitioner
Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite party
Mr. H.K. Panigrahi ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
28.10.2021
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The petitioner files this writ application seeking for
quashing of the order dated 25.05.2017 passed by the
Collector, Mayurbhanj under Annexure-10 and also the
communication made by the District Welfare Officer dated
30.05.2017 under Annexure-11.
3. Mr. B.B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner who was a trained graduate was
a candidate in pursuance to the advertisement made by the
Collector, Mayurbhanj on 21.03.1999 for filling up various
categories of posts in different High Schools, Kanyashrams
managed by the welfare department. The selection committee
met on 07.01.2000 and finalized the selection. At the time of
advertisement and selection the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992
and G.P.F. Rules were in vogue. The new pension rule was
introduced in the year 2006 with effect from 01.01.2005.
However the petitioner was not extended with the OCS
(Pension) Rules, 1992 as well as GPF Rules on the ground
that the petitioner was issued with appointment order on
24.12.2012. The petitioner accordingly approached the
Tribunal in O.A. No. 284 (C) of 2017. The said Original
Application was disposed of directing the opposite parties to
consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner.
However, the Collector, Mayurbhanj vide order dated
25.05.2017 under Annexure-10 rejected the claim of the
petitioner, which was communicated by the District Welfare
Officer, Mayurbhanj on 30.05.2017 vide Annexure-11 to the
writ petition. Mr. Mohanty further contended that the
grievance of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment
of this Court in the case of Anand Dash and seven others vs.
State of Orissa and others (W.P.(C) No. 15433 of 2012
disposed of on 24.04.2013), Shri Himansu Sekhar Dash
and three others v. State of Orissa (W.P.(C) No. 15856 of
2012 disposed of on 24.04.2013) and Shri Padma Charan
Das v. State of Orissa and others (W.P.(C) No. 1471 of
2013 disposed of on 24.04.2013), which has been annexed as
Annexure-12 to the rejoinder affidavit. Similar matters have
also been decided by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1536 of 2008
and 1537 of 2008, which were made confirmed by this Court
in W.P.(C) No. 9015 of 2014 and 5320 of 2014 decided on
22.11.2017 and also implemented vide Annexure-15.
Thereby the petitioner's claim has to be decided on the basis
of the judgment of this Court and also the order of the
Tribunal, which has been implemented by the authorities.
4. Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State contended that the claim of the
petitioner cannot be extended as has been stated in the writ
application and it is stated that the petitioner was a selectee
for the post of Trained Graduate (B.A. B.Ed) Teachers as
against the advertisement made on 21.03.1999 for filling up
of various categories of posts in different SSD High
Schools, Ashram School, Kanya Shram managed by the
Welfare Department including 02 posts for Trained
Graduate (1-B.A. B.Ed and 1- B.Sc. B.Ed) and other
teachers of Junior Grade posts. But due to commencement of
ban order by Government in Finance Department, on
austerity measure, appointment order was not issued to the
applicant as High School Teachers are not exempted from the
operation of ban. But the petitioner was appointed pursuant
to the direction given by the Tribunal on 24.12.2012 and
accordingly she joined her duty on 26.12.2012. Therefore,
since the petitioner joined after commencement of the New
Pension Scheme (NPS) Rule, 2006 was introduced by the
State Government with effect from 01.01.2005, the
petitioner's service condition is regulated by such pension
rules. Thereby the claim of the petitioner cannot sustain in
the eye of law.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the records, this Court is of the opinion that
admittedly the petitioner was a selectee for the post of
Trained Graduate Teacher against the advertisement made
on 21.03.1999, but due to latches on the part of the state
authorities she has been issued with the appointment order
only on 24.12.2012, pursuant to which she joined on
26.12.2012 against the vacant post advertised in the year
1999. Thereby, the benefit admissible to the petitioner cannot
be denied. Thus the order passed by the authority denying the
benefit to the petitioner vide Annexures-10 and 11, i.e. dated
25.05.2017 and 30.05.2017 cannot sustain in the eye of law
and the same are liable to quashed and thereby are quashed.
More so, the principle has already been decided by this Court
in the case of Anand Das (supra) and the Tribunal has also
passed similar orders, which has been made confirmed by
this Court in other two connected writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(C)
No. 9015 of 2014 and 5320 of 2014. In that view of the
matter, the claim of the petitioner is covered by the judgment
of this court in the case of Anand Das (supra) and also other
two writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 9015 of 2014 and 5320
of 2014.
6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of in terms of
the ratio decided in such cases. The benefit as due and
admissible to the petitioner be extended in accordance with
law. No order as to cost.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
Arun (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
