Orissa High Court
Rabindra Ku. Barik vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 27 June, 2024
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 25588 of 2013
Rabindra Ku. Barik .... Petitioner
Represented by
Mr. S.K.Das, Advocate
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Represented by
Additional Govt.
Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
27.06.2024
Order No. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
24.
. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following relief;
"Under above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and
direction/directions directing the opp. Parties to pay the arrear block
grant to the petitioner from 01.01.2004 to 04.08.2009 and also the
differential block grant in the 100% from 01.04.2013 on wards without
any further discrimination within a stipulated time as deem fit and
proper.
And for this act of kindness as in duty bound the petitioner shall ever
pray."
4. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that he was
appointed as Classical Teacher in Satsanga Sikshya Niketan,
Endrai as per order of the Managing Committee dated 25.06.1992.
He joined in the post on 01.07.1992. He claims to have been
illegally terminated by the Managing Committee challenging
which he approached the Regional Director of Education,
Bhubaneswar in Appeal No. 112 of 2008. The appeal was allowed
and he was directed to be reinstated in service. The service of the
petitioner was approved by the Inspector of schools, Balasore. By
order dated 26.04.2010. He was however, paid block-grant from
the date of reinstatement in the school i.e. 04.08.2009. The
petitioner claims to be entitled to block-grant from 01.01.2004. By
order dated 13.09.2013, as many as ten employes of the school
were granted block-grant with most of them being granted 100%
GIA (block grant). The petitioner, whose name finds place at SL.
No. 5 was granted 60% block grant with the period from
01.01.2004 to 03.08.2009 being approved notionally. Claiming that
such non-payment of 100% block grant for the period from
01.01.2004 to 04.08.2009 as also release of differential block grant
from 01.04.2013, the petitioner has approached this Court in the
present writ application.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the District Education
Officer (Opposite Party No.3) inter alia stating that as the
petitioner was in jail custody he was terminated from service.
Because of order passed by the appellate authority, he was
reinstated. GIA was therefore, paid reckoning the date of his
reinstatement. Such appointment was approved w.e.f. the date of
his reinstatement. As such, he is not entitled to claim the benefit
for the prior period i.e. 01.04.2008 till 04.08.2009. Further, his
claim for payment of arrears from 01.01.2004 to 04.08.2009 cannot
also be considered as he was not in service at that time.
6. Heard Mr. S.K.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
S.N.Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate.
7. Mr. Das submits that once the order of termination was set
aside by the appellate authority and the petitioner was reinstated in
service, his service is deemed to relate back to the date of his
illegal termination. Further, the release of block grant to the extent
of only 60 per cent from such date cannot be sustained as the same
is discriminatory in view of the fact that the most of employees of
the institution have been granted 100 per cent GIA. Mr. Das cites a
judgment of this Court passed in the case of Parbati Ghadei vrs.
State of Orissa & Others1 wherein, it was, inter alia, held as
follows.
"17: After going through the provisions referred hereinbefore carefully, this
Court is unable to persuade itself to agree with the reasoning adopted by the
opposite party authorities. From the scheme of the resolution, it is evident that
the institution in question has to first become eligible to receive block grant.
Once the institution comes within he grant-in-aid fold, the individual
employees also become automatically eligible. There is no provision by which
an employee can be deprived of the benefit taking the period of his/her service
in the institution. It is reiterated that the eligibility of an employee to receive
block grant is entirely dependent on the institution's eligibility. The resolution
does not conceive of a situation where the institution is eligible for 100 %
block grant but its individual employees are not. In the instant case it has been
pleaded and argued by the petitioner that all other employees are in receipt of
100% block grant except her. Such assertion has not been specifically denied
by the opposite party authorities. Thus, the interpretation of the Government
resolution being as narrated above, there is no way by which the petitioner
could be deprived of 100% block grant from 15.10.2011."
Mr. Das further submits that the said judgment has been confirmed
in Writ Appeal No. 2440 of 2023 by order dated 16.10.2023. He
further refers to a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench in the
case of Jasoda Giri vrs. State of Odisha & Others2 wherein the
principles laid down in Parbati Ghadei (supra) have been relied
upon and confirmed.
W.P.(C). 14995 of 2016
W.P.(C). 9111 of 2018
8. Mr. Pattnaik on the other hand, submits that firstly, no financial
benefit can be granted to the petitioner for the period prior to the
date of his reinstatement on the principle of 'no work no pay' and
secondly, his services were approved with effect from the date of
his reinstatement and therefore, 60 per cent of block grant was
rightly paid.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going
through the judgment passed in Parbati Ghadei (supra) followed
in Jasoda Giri (supra), this Court finds the case of the petitioner to
be squarely covered by the ratio of the said case. The writ
application is therefore, disposed of directing the authorities to
consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of 100 per cent
GIA (block grant) with effect from 01.04.2013 following the
principles laid down in the above cited decision. A decision in this
regard shall be taken within a period of two months from the date
of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
Deepak
Deepak
