Orissa High Court
Ramakrushna Purohit vs State Of Odisha & Others on 5 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) NO.4236 of 2022
Ramakrushna Purohit .... Petitioner
Mr. S.P. Swain, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others ... Opposite Parties
Mr. B.P. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
05.10.2023
Order No
15. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr.S.P.Swain, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl.
Government.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition
challenging the office order dt.06.11.2021 so passed by
Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-8.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
the Petitioner while continuing as a Resource Teacher,
he was regularized as a Primary School Teacher w.e.f
01.12.1995. When his pay was not protected, he
approached the Tribunal in OA No.2025 of 1996. The
Tribunal vide order dt.13.01.1999 under Annexure-3
while disposing the matter directed the authorities to
protect the pay of the petitioner.
4.1. It is contended that the order passed by the
Tribunal was also implemented by the then D.I of
School, Gunupur vide order dt.05.08.2000. But since
// 2 //
in the meantime, the order passed by the Tribunal on
13.01.1999 was challenged by the State before this
Court in OJC No.5453 of 2002, the order passed by the
D.I. of School on 05.08.2000 was not implemented. It
is contended that OJC No.5453 of 2002 along with
three other Writ Petitions were disposed of by this
Court vide judgment dt.05.05.2017 under Annexure-
11, wherein the order passed by the Tribunal was
confirmed.
4.2. However, even after confirmation of the order
passed by the Tribunal when the benefit of pay
protection was not extended in favour of the Petitioner,
he approached this Court in W.P.(C ) No.27705 of
2020. This Court vide order dt.18.11.2020 disposed of
the matter with a direction on Opp. Party No.2 to take
a decision on the Petitioner's claim as made in his
petition under Annexure-6 so filed to the said Writ
Petition.
4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
on the face of the order passed by the Tribunal under
Annexure-3 so confirmed by this Court in its order
under Annexure-11, there was no occasion on the part
of Opp. Party No.2 to reject the petitioner's claim. It is
accordingly contended that the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference
of this Court.
5. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on
the other hand made his submission basing on the
stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp.
Party No.4. Though Mr. Tripathy, learned AGA does not
// 3 //
dispute the order passed by the Tribunal so confirmed
by this Court, but it is contended that since the order
passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-3, was not
having any specific direction to extend the benefit of
pay protection, the petitioner's claim was rightly
rejected by Opp. Party No.2.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the materials available on record,
this Court finds that after his regularization as a
Primary School Teacher w.e.f 01.12.1995, Petitioner
seeking his pay protection, approached the Tribunal in
OA No.2025 of 1996. The Tribunal vide its order under
Annexure-3 clearly observed that the Petitioner is
entitled to get the benefit of pay protection. In terms of
the said order, the then DI of School allowed the benefit
of pay protection vide office order dt. 05.08.2000.
However, since the order under Annexure-3 was
challenged by the State before this Court in OJC
No.5453 of 2002, the benefit in terms of order
dt.05.08.2000 was not extended in favour of the
petitioner. It is found that OJC No.5453 of 20002 was
disposed of by this Court vide its judgment
dt.05.05.2017 by confirming the order passed by the
Tribunal.
In view of such position and taking into account
the fact that the order passed by the Tribunal was
implemented by the then DI of School vide order
dt.5.08.2000, this Court is of the view that Opp. Party
No.2 has illegally rejected the petitioner's claim to get
the benefit of pay protection. While holding so, this
// 4 //
Court is inclined to quash the order dt.06.11.2021 so
passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-8. While
quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No.4
to extend the benefit in terms of Office order No.4890
dt.05.08.2000 within a period of three (3) months from
the date of receipt of this order. Copy of the order
dt.05.08.2000 so produced by Mr. Swain be kept on
record.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with
the aforesaid observation and direction.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 09-Oct-2023 14:24:33
