Orissa High Court
Balabha Narayan Bhola & Anr vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 21 June, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.444 of 2017
Balabha Narayan Bhola & Anr. ..... Petitioners
Mr. J.R. Khunita, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Rath, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
21.06.2024
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. J.R. Khuntia, learned counsel for the Petitioners and
Mr. S. Rath, 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 Petitioners by
making them entitled to receive grant-in-aid vide the order in
question made a stipulation that the arrear shall be confined from the
date of the order so passed in all those cases.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that since the
Petitioners 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.
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. S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel does not dispute the
issued 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 in all the batch of writ petitions are similar to
the issue decided, this Court while disposing the Writ Petitions
directs that the Petitioners will be entitled to get the benefit of the
arrear claim from the date of their entitlement as indicated in their
respective orders of approval so issued by the Government in the
present batch of writ petitions. Such entitlement of the Petitioners 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 stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
