Orissa High Court
Poonpun Das And Others vs State Of Odisha & Others on 13 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2153 of 2021
Poonpun Das and others .... Petitioners
Mr.B. Routray,
Sr. Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. B.P.Tripathy, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 13.2.2023.
I.A. No.1241 of 2021
8. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Addl.
Government Advocate for the State.
3. The Petitioners, by means of the present I.A. seek stay
operation of the order under Annexure-10 with further direction
to the Opposite Parties to release the current and arrear salary in
their favour as they were receiving earlier.
4. The Petitioners are working as Lecturers in Vyasanagar
(Auto) College at Jajpur Road, which is an Aided Educational
// 2 //
Institution. The Petitioners were appointed in pursuance of a
selection process and their appointment was approved in terms
of the GIA Order, 1994 by the Director vide order dated 20th
December, 2013. An F.I.R. was lodged by the Vigilance Police
alleging manipulation of records by the Petitioners in order to
come under the GIA fold. Basing on such F.I.R. a show cause
notice was issued on 11th June, 20202 to the Principal. The
Petitioners submitted their reply denying all the allegations.
However, by order dated 15th January, 2021 (Annexure-10), the
Regional Director of Education (Opposite Party No.3)
withdrew the GIA/Block Grant released in favour of the
Petitioner towards salary and other purposes under Section 7-D
of the Act in pursuance of direction issued by the Principal
Secretary to the Government in Higher Education Department.
5. Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
Petitioners submits that the benefit already granted to the
Petitioners cannot be unilaterally withdrawn on a mere
allegation and without there being any concrete proof of the
same. He further submits that the Petitioners are duly
discharging their duties but are going without any
remuneration, which is causing serious financial difficulties.
6. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate,
referring to a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case
of State of U.P. and others v. Ram Sukhi Devi; reported in
(2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 733, submits that granting the
// 3 //
prayer in the I.A. would amount to granting the main relief
sought by the Petitioners in the Writ Petition and therefore, the
same should not be considered at this stage.
7. The Petitioners have filed the Writ Petition seeking the
following prayer;
"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to admit the
writ application, call for the record, issue Rule
Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show
case as to why the order dated 15.1.2021 under
Annexure-10 issued by the Opposite Party No.3
shall not be quashed, if the opposite parties do not
show cause or show insufficient case issue a writ
in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions quashing the Order No.543
dated 15.1.2021 under Annexure-10 issued by the
Opp.Party No.3, issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other writ/writs,
direction/directions directing the opposite parties
to release the arrear salary from the month of
June, 2020 in favour of the petitioners forthwith
and pass such other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may
deems fit and proper for the ends of justice."
8. It goes without saying that the withdrawal of Grant-in-
Aid/Block Grant is a consequence of the order under Annexure-
10, which is sought to be quashed. There is no dispute that the
Petitioners are discharging their duties as before. There is also
no dispute that certain allegations have been raised, but nothing
has been proved as yet. Under such circumstances, the legality
// 4 //
and propriety of the impugned order under Annexure-10 is a
matter to be adjudicated upon in the Writ Petition. But
depriving the Petitioners from their current salary at least would
certainly cause great prejudice to them.
9. Having regard to the points raised by both the parties, this
Court would not like to issue any direction as regards the arrear
salary of the Petitioners but in so far as the current salary is
concerned, this Court finds no reason to deprive them from the
same without prejudice to the rival contentions in the pending
Writ Petition.
10. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the I.A. is disposed of
with direction to the Opposite Party-authorities to pass
necessary orders to release the current salary of the Petitioners
from the month of February, 2023 onwards. Such order shall be
subject to the condition that if the Petitioners ultimately do not
succeed in the Writ Petition, they shall refund the amounts
received by them during pendency of the Writ Petition towards
GIA/Block Grant.
11. List this on 6th March, 2023 for filing of compliance
affidavit by the Opposite Party-authorities.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
AKB Judge
// 5 //
