Prasanta Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5502 Ori

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                           W.P.(C). No. 9297 of 2019

      (An application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
      India)
                                    ---------------

      Prasanta Kumar Jena                    ......        Petitioner

                              -Versus-

      State of Odisha and others      ....          Opposite Parties

      Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
      _______________________________________________________

        For Petitioner        :   M/S. S.Patra,
                                  S.Rath, S.R.Nayak, Advocates.
         For Opp. Parties :       M/s. S.K.Behera
                                  Additional Standing Counsel
                                  D. Behera, J.Bhuyan (Opposite party
                                  No. 6 & 7)
      _______________________________________________________
      CORAM:
           JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                   JUDGMENT

09th May, 2023 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

. The petitioner has approached this Court

with the following prayer;

"Under the facts and circumstances stated above, this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ/ writs in the nature of a writ of Certiorari quashing the orders dated 26.02.2018 and 25.02.2019 under Annexures-4 & 6 after declaring those as illegal.

And further be pleased to issue a writ/writs in the nature of a writ of Mandamus commanding the

Opposite Parties to reinstate the petitioner in his post and to pay arrear salaries with all other consequential benefits with 12% interest and cost for unnecessary harassment to the poor petitioner. And further be pleased to pass any other Order/Orders, direction/directions as deemed fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall remain ever pray."

2. The petitioner was working as a peon under

opposite party No.5 having joined as such on 01.12.1990. His

appointment was approved by the District Inspector of

Schools, Bhubaneswar (opposite party No.4) w.e.f.

01.12.1990. On the basis of the findings of a disciplinary

proceeding initiated against him, the petitioner's services

were terminated by order dated 23.09.1996. The petitioner

challenged the order of termination before the State

Education Tribunal, Odisha in Appeal No. 34 of 1996. By

judgment dated 20.06.1997, learned Tribunal was pleased to

allow the appeal by directing reinstatement of the petitioner

in the former post forthwith. The Management opposite party

No.5 challenged the judgment of the Tribunal before this

Court in OJC No. 9387 of 1997, which was dismissed for

non-prosecution on 27.01.2010. The petitioner submitted

representations to the authorities to act upon the judgment

passed by the learned tribunal but to no avail. When the

matter stood thus, as per letter dated 25.02.2019 of the

Management, the petitioner was informed that grant-in-aid

was withdrawn and that only two teachers will continue to

get salary from the Government till their dates of retirement.

It was also intimated that the prayer of the petitioner for

acceptance of re-appointment is not within the purview of

Grant-in-Aid fold since the school has become an unaided

school w.e.f. 01.04.2014 without any post of peon.

3. The stand of the Block Education Officer is that the

Government after careful consideration decided that the

aided character of the school shall be withdrawn and it will

became a totally private funded institution w.e.f. 01.04.2014.

Since the status the school is private managed one, the State

has no role to play in the matter.

4. The stand of the Management of the School is more or

less the same as the District Education Officer. It is

reiterated that the petitioner was an employee when the

school was an aided Institution but now it is a private

managed Institution.

5. Without entering into the controversy as regards the

status of the school, this Court observes that by judgment

passed on 20.06.1997, learned Education Tribunal had set

aside the order of termination issued against the petitioner

and directed his reinstatement in his former post forthwith.

The said judgment has attained finality in view of the fact

that the writ petition filed by the Management challenging

the same was dismissed for non-prosecution and as stated at

the bar, the case was never restored to file thereafter. Thus,

the judgment of the Tribunal has to be implemented. It must

be kept in mind that under the rule of law, the judgment

passed by a statutory Tribunal, if not set aside by the higher

forum in appeal, has to be implemented in letter and spirit.

Moreover, this Court finds that the Management of the

School was a party to the appeal before the Tribunal and was

duly heard on facts. Therefore, notwithstanding the status of

the Institution there is no other option for the Management

than to fully implement the judgment of the Tribunal. There

can be no interpretation made to the judgment passed by a

statutory Tribunal except for abiding by it.

6. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ application

is allowed. The opposite party No.5 is directed to act upon the

direction of the Tribunal as per its judgment dated

20.06.1997 as early as possible, preferably within a period of

four weeks from the date of communication of this order or

on production of certified copy thereof by the petitioner.

...............................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 9th May, 2023/ Deepak

DEEPAK Digitally signed by DEEPAK PARIDA

PARIDA Date: 2023.05.12 14:48:54 +05'30'