Subhrakanta Dash vs State Of Odisha & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 9251 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P.(C) No.26468 of 2021


            Subhrakanta Dash                      ....            Petitioner
                                                          Mr. T.K. Nayak,
                                                                Advocate
                                       -versus-

            State of Odisha & Anr.                ....    Opposite Parties
                                                        Mr. P.Ch. Panda,
                                         Additional Government Advocate


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
                                      ORDER

3.09.2021 Order No.

01. 1. The Petitioner has filed this application seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to treat the Petitioner at par with the employees of other aided Educational Institution who were extended with Grant-in-Aid in accordance with Grant-in-Aid order, 1994 and accordingly to extend all benefits as applicable to the Aided Educational Institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Educational Act, such as earned leaves as prescribed under Rule 9 of the 1977 Rules, extra ordinary leaves as prescribed under the Rule 12 of the 1977 Rules as well as study leaves as prescribed under Rule 13 of 1977 Rules and also other benefits such as upon superannuation all retiral and pensionary benefits under the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions' Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 and G.P.F. benefit under the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees' General Provident Funds Rules, 1983, in

// 2 //

view of the ratio decided in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul Vrs. State of Orissa and others, reported in 2016-I-ILR-1162 and as the Petitioner is an employee of an Aided Educational Institution

2. 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.

3. Learned State Counsel contended that in view of the 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 is concerned, 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 the case of State of Odisha v. Sri Lokanath Behera,

// 3 //

2018 (II) OLR 932, which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7295 of 2019 arising out of SLP(C) No. 8343 of 2019 disposed of on 16.09.2019.

4. Considering the contentions raised by the 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 the 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 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) and also keeping in view the observation and consideration of citations made in disposal of W.P.(C) No.29322 of 2020, 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.

5. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

A.K. Jena