Orissa High Court
Ranjan Kumar Biswal vs State Of Odisha And Others on 12 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.360 of 2022
Ranjan Kumar Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. Banabihari Ray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S. Jena,
Standing Counsel for S & ME
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 12.01.2022
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
3. The Petitioner, who is a teaching staff of Aided School has
filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the Opposite
Party Nos.1 and 2 to treat the Petitioner at par with the employees of
other Aided Education Institutions who was 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 Education Act, such
as provided under 1977 Rules Pension Rules, though the same
facilities and benefits was given to other institutions which was
notified under Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act pursuant to
the Grant in Aid Order 1994 keeping in view of the ratio decided by
this Court in the case of Ritanjali giri @ Paul vrs. State of Orissa
and others reported in 2016 (I) ILR CUT 1162 and the order passed
// 2 //
in W.P.(C) No.23312 of 2020 and to direct the Opposite Party Nos.1
and 2 for opening of G.P.F. Account within a stipulated period.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further prays for
consideration of his case in terms of the judgment pronounced by
this Court in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul vs. State of Odisha
(School & M.E. Deptt.) & Ors, reported in 2016(I) ILR 1162 and in
the case of Bindusagar Samantray vs. State of Odisha & Others
(W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 disposed of on 13.09.2021.)
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on another
judgment of this Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Mohapatra &
others (W.P.(C) No.23312 of 2020 disposed of on 28.09.2021) and
in the case of Sarangadhar Sahoo and others ( W.P.(C) No.29342
of 2021 ).
6. Without going into merits of the case at this stage, this Court
remits the matter back to the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 to consider
the representation of the Petitioner dated 25.11.2021 (Annexure-6) in
the light of judgments referred to hereinabove.
7. It is needless to mention here that if the Petitioner is covered
under the aforesaid judgments and is entitled to any benefit under
such Rules, the same be promptly calculated and be paid to him
within a stipulated time.
8. Let a certified copy of this order be produced before the
Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 within a period of two weeks hence and
the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 shall do well to take a decision in the
matter within a period of three months thereafter and the decision so
taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of two
weeks from the date of such decision.
// 3 //
9. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the case.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed
of.
11. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID -19 situation
are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out
of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with
certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned Advocate, in
the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th
March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No.4798, dated 15th
April, 2021 and Office Order dated 7th January, 2022.
Jagabandhu ( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
