Orissa High Court
Jyotsnalata Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others on 9 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No. 9488 of 2022
Jyotsnalata Jena ..... Petitioner
Mr. L. Mohanty, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite parties
Mr. S. Jena, SC & S&ME Deptt
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
09.11.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. L. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. S. Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass
Education Department.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the
opposite parties to release family pension in her favour with effect from
16.06.2021 by counting the entire period of service of her husband Late
Nimai Charan Jena from 26.10.1992 to 15.06.2021 as directed by the
Tribunal in O.A. No. 2492 (C) of 2011 and batch dated 28.09.2015 under
Annexure-3 as well as similar order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.
35275 of 2021 dated 28.03.2022 under Annexure-4. The petitioner has
further prayed to direct the opposite parties to release the pensionary
benefits of Late Nimai Charan Jena in favour of the petitioner and all
other arrears and family pension in her favour with effect from
16.06.2021 with all arrears @ 9% interest thereon.
4. Mr. S. Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass
Education Department contended that against the judgment of the
Tribunal, the State had preferred a review petitions before the Tribunal,
which were transferred to this Court after abolition of the Tribunal. All
such review petitions, such as RVWPET (RPC) Nos. 25, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8,
9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 23, 28 and 29 of 2019 with CONTC (CPC) Nos.
268, 308, 309 and 313 of 2016 were taken together and disposed of vide
common order dated 13.09.2022, by which this Court allowed the
Review Petitions filed by the State and accordingly the common order
dated 28.09.2015 passed by the tribunal in O.A. No. 3682 (C) of 2011
and batch of cases was set aside. It is contended that so far as the
petitioner's case is concerned, the State had filed RVWPET (RPC) No.
29 of 2019. Therefore, it is contended that in view of the order passed in
Review Petitions, the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit as
claimed by her.
5. Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner contended that against the order dated 28.09.2014 passed by
the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3251 (C) of 2011 (Pratap Chandra Mallick) and
batch of matters, which also includes O.A. No. 3682 (C) of 2011 (Smt.
Sampatrani Acharya), against which the Review Petition was filed as
indicated above, the State had also preferred a writ petition bearing
W.P.(C) No. 23915 of 2017. The said writ petition was disposed of vide
order dated 04.04.2022 by observing that the issue involved in this case
is analogous to one involved in W.P.(C) No. 631 of 2019, which had
been disposed of vide order dated 13.03.2020 and accordingly the said
writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 13.03.2020
passed in W.P.(C) No. 631 of 2019. He further contended that the
W.P.(C) No. 631 of 2019 was challenged against the order dated
04.01.2018 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3860 (C) of 2015 by
which the tribunal has directed the State authorities to count the period of
service of the applicant from the date of her initial appointment as
resource teacher and to extend all consequential benefits like seniority,
promotion, protection of pay and fixation of her pay under ORSP Rules,
2008 as due and admissible. The division bench of this Court vide order
dated 13.03.2020 confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal dated
04.01.2018 passed in O.A. No. 3860 (C) of 2015 and accordingly
dismissed the writ petition filed by the State authorities. He also
contended that against the order dated 04.01.2018 passed in O.A. No.
3860 (C) of 2015, the State has not filed any review petition as indicated
above. Therefore, he contended that once the issue has already been
settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition by
confirming the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is entitled to
get the benefit.
6. Once the Division Bench of this Court has already held that the
petitioner is entitled to get the said benefit, in the order dated 13.03.2020
passed in W.P.(C) No. 631 of 2019, where the Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.K.
Panigrahi was a member, in that case this fact must not have been
brought to the notice of the said Hon'ble Judge by the State authorities,
while adjudicating Review Petitions as indicated above, and as such,
contrary orders have been passed.
7. However, it is contended by learned counsel for the parties that
against the order dated 13.09.2022 passed in RVWPET (RPC) No. 25 of
2019 and batch, Writ Appeal has been filed which is pending
consideration.
8. Since the Writ Appeal is pending for consideration, in that view of
the matter place this matter after disposal of the Writ Appeal.
Arun (DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.)
