Orissa High Court
Minati Nath vs State Of Odisha & Another on 5 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.36751 of 2022
Minati Nath .... Petitioner
Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, ASC
COROM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
05.05.2023
Order No
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
appearing for the State.
3. As found from the pleadings available in the writ
petition, the Government while approving the services of
the Petitioner by making her 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 years prior to
filing of the respective case.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
since the Petitioner 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.
// 2 //
5. 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
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".
6. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
does not dispute the issue decided by this Court in the
above noted cases.
7. 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 is similar to the issue decided, this Court while
disposing the Writ Petition directs that the Petitioner will
// 3 //
be entitled to get the benefit of the arrear claim from the
date of her entitlement as indicated in the order of
approval so issued by the Government in the present writ
petition. Such entitlement of the Petitioner as due and
admissible be released with due calculation within a period
of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN
Designation: Jr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication of order
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-May-2023 19:26:29
