Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Hemanta Kumar Chhotray on 3 March, 2025
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.197 of 2024
State of Odisha .... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. K.C. Kar, Government
Advocate
-versus-
Hemanta Kumar Chhotray .... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Dr. Purusottam Chuli, Advocate
Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
03.03.2025
Order No.
04. 1. Mr. Kar, learned advocate, Government Advocate appears on
behalf of appellant (State). The appeal has been preferred against
judgment dated 12th January, 2024 made by the learned single Judge in
very many appeals. Respondents in the appeals are employees of
educational institutions claiming, Odisha Aided Educational
Institutions' Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 applies to
them per rule-3.
// 2 //
2. Mr. Kar submits, respondents in all the appeals received their
salary through grant-in-aid by block grant. They cannot claim their
respective institutions come under the direct payment system.
3. Dr. Chuli, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent.
Mr. Mohanty, learned senior advocate and Mr. Routray, learned senior
advocate appear and submit, their clients are respondents in other
appeals not listed. So does other learned advocates representing
respondents in other appeals, who appear.
4. The appeal has been moved. On behalf of respondents reliance
is placed on view taken by a learned single Judge of this Court on
judgment dated 8th May, 2014 in W.P.(C) no.16425 of 2013 (Sarat
Chandra Parida v. State of Odisha) reported in, 2014 LabIC 3597.
We reproduce below a passage from paragraph-7 in the judgment
(Manupatra print).
"7. ... ... The plain language of Rule-3 makes it clear that
irrespective of the nature of grant-in-aid given by the
Government to various staff of a college, once the college has
required status of one coming under the direct payment system
then even if a staff is not getting full salary from the
Government under the direct payment system or getting only
some aid in whatever form including „block grant‟, he will be
covered under the Rules and be entitled to pensionary benefits
under the Rules taking into account the amount of aid he
// 3 //
receives from the Government as salary and the period of his
qualifying service. ... ..."
5. Appellant will be heard on what is a recognized non-government
college or high school or senior basic school or M.E. school, which
comes under the direct payment system. The rule describing the
institutions as non-government itself implies something is received from
the government. We would like to know whether the distinction is of the
grant received by the institution or directly by the employees. If the
employees receive it, it must mean direct payment.
6. List on 18th March, 2025.
(Arindam Sinha)
Acting Chief Justice
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
Gs/Radha
