Orissa High Court
Panigrahi Subas Chandra Dash vs State Of Odisha on 13 August, 2025
Author: B. P. Routray
Bench: B. P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:11:38
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.7306 of 2019
Panigrahi Subas Chandra Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. Umakant Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha, represented through its
Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Department of Higher Education and
Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. G. Tripathy, AGA
Mr. S. Das, counsel for O.P. No.3
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
13.8.2025
Order No.
18. 1. Heard Mr. U.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.
S. Das, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3 - College and Mr. G.
Tripathy, learned AGA for State - Opposite Parties.
2. The Petitioner who served as Lecturer in English in different
colleges and now retired has filed present writ petition praying to
release all his arrear salary as per the affidavit filed by the Director of
Higher Education dated 15th March, 2016 in WP(C) No.8922 of 2013.
3. The background facts of the case are that, the Petitioner was
initially appointed as Lecturer in English in Athamalik College in the
district of Angul and seeking approval of his service he filed GIA
Case No.224 of 2007 before the State Education Tribunal. His case
was allowed on contest vide judgment dated 6th August, 2010 of the
tribunal, which was challenged by the State Government in FAO
Designation: Personal Assistant
No.18 of 2014 before this court. Said FAO being dismissed, State
Government approached Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.2408 of 2017 and batch in respect of similarly situated persons.
The Supreme Court vide order dated 6th February, 2017 has disposed
of all the civil appeals on the agreed order as follows:-
"5. These appeals are disposed of accordingly, in
terms of the following agreed order.
6. It is ordered that in the case of concerned
respondents as well as impleaded employees, the date
of approval of grant-in-aid will be pre-poned /
advanced by three years.
7. Thus, the State would be liable to make the
payment of grant-in-aid to each of such employee for
additional three years preceding the date of approval of
the concerned employee for the purpose of grant-in-
aid, that is to say, e.g., the respondent in SLP
(C)..........CC No.11584 of 2016, namely, Nirakar
Swain was given benefit of grant-in-aid w.e.f. 7th
January, 2009, that date will be preceded by three years
to 7th January, 2006. Similar treatment will be meted-
out to each of the employees by preponing the date by
three years.
8. In case, the State Government has already
complied with the orders and has released it from any
earlier date before three years, no recovery shall be
made from employee.
9. This Order will not affect the other pending
matters as it is passed on consensus and they will be
decided on their own merits.
10. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly."
4. Further some interlocutory applications were preferred on
behalf of some of the parties before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
vide order dated 21st March, 2017 the Supreme Court clarified that the
Designation: Personal Assistant
order of the tribunal is not disturbed and as such notional benefits
have to be given from the date the benefit had been granted by the
tribunal in each of the case.
5. It is now contended by the Petitioner that since the arrear and
current amount was already sanctioned by the State Government
pending the SLP and a compliance affidavit has been filed before this
court dated 15th March 2016, therefore, all such amounts already
sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner should be released in his favour.
6. Admittedly, in the orders of approval dated 11th March, 2016
issued by Government of Odisha and 14th March, 2016 issued by the
Director, Higher Education it has been specifically mentioned that
such order of approval and release of grant-in-aid shall be subject to
outcome of the Civil Leave Petition filed before the Apex Court in
this regard. It is true that Civil Appeal No.2408 of 2017 has been filed
by the State in respect of present Petitioner and as per the order of
Hon'ble Apex Court the State would be liable to make payment of
grant-in-aid to each of such employee for additional three years
preceding the date of approval of the concerned employee for the
purpose of grant-in-aid. Undisputedly, though amount was sanctioned
but has not been released in favour of the Petitioner till 6th February,
2017. In the meantime, before release of the amount in favour of the
Petitioner fresh order of the Government was issued vide letter dated
18th February 2017 clarifying the position, which is impugned in
present writ petition. It is stated that in view of the order of Hon'ble
Apex Court the Petitioner is entitled for arrear salary 3 years prior to
the date of his approval, i.e. from 11th March, 2013 and the earlier
order of approval dated 11th March, 2016 is modified to this extent.
Designation: Personal Assistant
7. When it remains undisputed that the arrear amount was not
released in favour of the Petitioner till 6th February, 2017, when the
order of Hon'ble Supreme Court was passed, no right is conferred on
the Petitioner to get the entire amount of arrear beyond three years
preceeding period though the same has been sanctioned. As such no
merit is seen in favour of the Petitioner to get the entire arrear amount
as per the earlier approval order. The prayer of the Petitioner is
accordingly rejected and the writ petition is dismissed.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K.Panda
