Orissa High Court
Hara Prasad Ray vs State Of Odisha & Others on 21 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) Nos.15658 of 2020, W.P(C) No.13471, 19912,
22694 of 2016, W.P.(C) No.7131 of 2017, W.P.(C) No.6527,
7851, 7852, 10848, 10849, 10850, 10851, 10853, 10855,
13661, 13664, 14496, 15099, 15440, 15442, 15445,
15446, 17541, 20009 of 2018 & W.P.(C) No.10434 of
2019
W.P.(C) No.15658 of 2020
Hara Prasad Ray .... Petitioner
Mr.S.K.Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, ASC
COROM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
21.04.2023
Order No
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr.S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioners
in all the cases except W.P.(C) No.22694 of 2016 argued by
Mr. Sangram Jena, learned counsel and Mr. D.K. Mohanty,
learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
3. Since the issue involved in all the batch of writ
petitions are similar, all are taken up together and
disposed of by the present common order.
4. As found from the pleadings available in the writ
petitions, the Government while approving the services of
the Petitioners by making them entitled to receive grant-in-
aid vide the order in question made a stipulation that as
per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Union of India & Others vs.Tarsem Singh reported in
(2008) 8 SCC-648, the arrear will be confined to three
// 2 //
years prior to filing of the respective cases and in some
cases, it has been indicated that the arrear shall be
confined from the date of the order so passed in all those
cases.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that
since the Petitioners claiming extension of the benefit of
grant-in-aid approached the competent court and basing
on the order passed by such competent court the benefit
was extended, there was no justification to confine the
eligibility to get the benefit placing reliance on the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Singh.
6. It is also contended that similar issue was before this
Court in W.P.(C) Nos.20713 of 2016 and 22554 of 2017
and this Court vide judgment dated 14.03.2023 while
disposing the matter held that such a stipulation is not
permissible. The view expressed by this Court in Para-11
& 12 of the judgment is quoted hereunder:-
"11. A bare reading of the afore quoted observations of the
Apex Court would make it clear that if the case relates to re-
fixation of pay and such like benefits may be granted in spite
of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. There
is no dispute that the benefit in question being basically re-
fixation of pay in terms of the GIA Order, 1994 is in the
nature of an individual benefit granted to an eligible
employee on fulfillment of certain conditions and as such,
does not apply to all the employee at large. A co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Swarnalata Sahoo v.
State of Orissa and others (W.P.(C) No.19445/2016)
analyzed the ratio decided in the case of Tarsem Singh
(supra) and held that there was no justification on the part of
the Opposite Parties in issuing the impugned orders in
supersession of the earlier orders purportedly in terms of the
judgment in Tarsem Singh (supra). This Court is therefore
of the considered view that the ratio of Tarsem Singh
(supra) has been wrongly applied to the case of the Petitioner
for which the impugned order is rendered unsustainable in
the eye of law.
12. Thus, on a conspectus of the analysis of facts and law
involved in the case and the discussion made hereinbefore,
this Court finds that the Petitioners have made out a good
// 3 //
case for interference. Resultantly, the Writ Petitions succeed
and are therefore, allowed. The impugned order under
Annexure-5 is hereby quashed. The Opposite Party-
authorities are directed to extend the benefits to the
Petitioners as granted by order dated 14th may, 2015 under
Annexure-4 within a period of three months".
7. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
does not dispute the issued decided by this Court in the
above noted cases.
8. Having heard learned counsels for the Parties and
placing reliance on the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.20713/2016, and on being satisfied that the issue
involved in all the batch of writ petitions are similar to the
issue decided, this Court while disposing the Writ Petitions
directs that the Petitioners will be entitled to get the benefit
of the arrear claim from the date of their entitlement as
indicated in their respective orders of approval so issued
by the Government in the present batch of writ petitions.
Such entitlement of the Petitioners as due and admissible
be released with due calculation within a period of four (4)
months from the date of receipt of this order.
9. Accordingly, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of.
10. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected
cases.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
