Orissa High Court
Sukanti Jena & Others vs State Of Odisha & Others on 27 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.35699 of 2020
Sukanti Jena & Others .... Petitioners
Ms. R. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA
COROM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
27.04.2023
Order No
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Ms. Ranjita Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
Petitioners and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl.
Government Advocate for the State.
3. Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition
challenging the order dated 18.01.2020, so issued by the
Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-7, whereby the
benefit extended in favour of the deceased employee was
taken away.
4. It is contended that the claim of the deceased
employee to get the benefit of grant-in-aid was allowed by
the Tribunal vide judgment dated 05.05.2018 in GIA Case
No.199 of 2015 under Annexure-4. The said order was
subsequently implemented by the Government vide order
dated 07.01.2019 under Annexure-5. However relying on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court so passed in the
case of State of Odisha and Another vs. Anup Kumar
Senapati and Another in Civil Appeal No.7295 of 2019,
// 2 //
the impugned order was passed by the Government by
recalling the approval so issued in favour of the Petitioner's
late husband on 07.01.2019.
4.1. It is contended that since the claim of the deceased
employee was allowed by the Tribunal vide its judgment
dated 05.05.2018 and the said order having never been
challenged by the State relying on the decision in the case
of State of Odisha and Another vs. Anup Kumar
Senapati and Another, the order of approval issued in
favour of the deceased employee under Annexure-5 cannot
be taken away by issuing the impugned order dated
18.01.2020.
It is accordingly contended that the order dated
18.01.2020 under Annexure-7 is not sustainable in the eye
of law.
5. Mr. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Government
Advocate on the other hand contended that since similar
issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Odisha and Another vs. Anup Kumar
Senapati and Another, and on scrutiny it was found that
the order passed by the Tribunal is not implementable, the
order of approval so issued in favour of the deceased
employee on 07.01.2019 was recalled vide order at
Annexure-7 and no illegality has been committed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after
going through the materials available on record, it is found
that the claim of the deceased employee to get the benefit
of grant-in-aid was allowed by the Tribunal vide its
judgment dated 05.05.2018 in GIA Case No.199 of 2015
under Annexure-4. The order passed under Annexure-4
// 3 //
was also implemented vide order dated 07.01.2019 under
Annexure-5. Therefore, placing reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anup Kumar
Senapati and Another, the benefit extended in terms of
the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be taken away as
the order passed by the Tribunal was never challenged by
the Opposite Parties and it was also implemented vide
order dated 07.01.2019.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to
interfere with the order dated 18.01.2020 under
Annexure-7 and quash the same. While quashing the
same, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to extend the
benefit of the order dated 05.05.2018 so implemented vide
Annexure-5 in favour of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 within a
period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this
order. The other prayer made by the Petitioners with
regard to non-consideration of the case for appointment
under the provisions of Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme,
the Petitioners are given liberty to file separate application
in that regard.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
