Orissa High Court
Dr. Debendra Ku. Mishra vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 4 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.127 of 2020
Dr. Debendra Ku. Mishra .... Appellant
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Respondents
Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
04.05.2023
Order No
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.
S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp.
Parties.
3. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order
dtd.17.12.2019 in GIA Case No. 69 of 2018 by the State Education
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (in short "Tribunal") seeking release of
Grant-in-aid w.e.f.01.06.1988 and 01.06.1990 in terms of GIA
Order, 1994. The Appellant moved the Tribunal in GIA Case No.
69 of 2018.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that taking into
account the admissibility of the post in question and the date of
appointment of the Appellant, he is entitled to get the benefit of
Grant-in-aid as per the Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 after completion of
5 years of his appointment. It is also contended that similar benefit
was extended in favour of some other lecturers vide order
dtd.28.08.2015 under Annexure-5. However, all those things were
// 2 //
not taken into consideration by the Tribunal while dismissing the
case of the Petitioner vide the impugned Judgment. It is also
contended that the State-Respondents have also not filed any
counter affidavit controverting the stand taken by the Appellant in
GIA case. It is accordingly contended that the Tribunal disposed of
the matter in a haste without waiting for the counter by the State-
Respondent as well as by the Governing Body of the College.
6. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned AGA on the other hand contended that
in view of the provisions contained under Order 12 of Grant-in-aid
Order, 1994 the Petitioner having continued in a Category II
College, he is not entitled to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid prior to
01.06.1994 in terms of GIA Order, 1994. It is further contended that
the benefit extended in favour of the staffs of the College vide order
under Annexure-5 was extended because of the order passed by this
Court and confirmation of the same by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
the said benefit cannot be applied to the case of the Appellant.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after
going through the materials available on record, it is found that the
Appellant since raised his claim for extension of the Grant-in-aid
from a particular date prior to 01.06.1994 and in support of his
claim he produced the benefits extended in favour of similarly
situated lecturers, the Tribunal should have decided the matter on
merit by allowing the Respondents therein to file their counter
affidavit. Since it is found that the Tribunal disposed of the matter
in absence of any counter by the Respondents and no reason has
been assigned with regard to denial of benefit on the face of the
order at Annexure-5, this Court is inclined to quash the order
dtd.17.12.2019. While quashing the same, this Court remits the
// 3 //
matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal by giving opportunity of
hearing to all concerned.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sneha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: .
Location: Cuttack
Date: 05-May-2023 15:23:15
