Orissa High Court
Sangita Tripathy vs State Of Odisha & Others on 30 May, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15182 of 2025
Sangita Tripathy .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Jena, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
30.05.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the
Petitioner inter alia with the following prayer:-
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
be graciously pleased to:
i) Admit the writ application.
ii) Call for the records.
iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ/writs, direction/directions directing the opposite
parties, more particularly opposite party No. 1 and 2 to
release the admitted arrear salary in favour of the
petitioner for the period from 17.10.1994 to 28.02.2008
as per entitlement fixed in clause-1 of the approval
order dt. 15.07.2015 and 28.08.2015 issued by the
Opp. Party No.1 and 2 under Annexure-3 series and by
taking into consideration the bills submitted by the
// 2 //
Opp. Party No.4 dt.07.01.2017 under Annexure-4,
keeping in view the direction issued by the learned
State Education Tribunal passed in GIA Case No.489
of 2011 under Annexure-1, which has been upheld by
this Hon'ble Court in FAO No.327 of 2014 under
Annexure-2, as well as the judgment/order passed by
this Hon'ble court in W.P.(C) No.27147 of 2017
disposed of on 12.02.2020 under Annexure-5, which
has been made confirmed in W.A No.997 of 2021
dismissed on 22.08.2023 under Annexure-8 and the
same has been further confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex
court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.33341 of 2024 dismissed
on 21.10.2024 under Annexure-9 and the petitioner
may be extended with all other consequential service
and financial benefits as due and admissible,
including the differential arrears within a reasonable
time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble court.
iv) And/or such pass other order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems
fit and proper for the ends of justice.
And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever pray".
4. It is contended that basing on the order passed by
the Tribunal in GIA Case No.489 of 2011 so confirmed
by this Court in FAO No.327 of 2014 under
Annexure-2, while approving the services of the
Petitioner, since the arrear entitlement of the Petitioner
was confined to a period of three years vide order
dtd.15.07.2015 under Annexure-3-Series, challenging
such stipulation contained in Para-3 of order dtd.
15.07.2015, Petitioner approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.27147 of 2017. Para-3 of the order
dtd.15.07.2015 reads as follows:-
"3. Arrear claim as admissible to the incumbent may
be calculated as per actual differential by deducting
the salary received by the incumbent from the
Government. The arrear claim shall be restricted to
// 3 //
only three years before the date of filing of present
Petition as per judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 2008 (8) SCC 648 (Union of India
and Others Vrs- Tarsem Singh) and be paid to the
incumbent subject to the provision under Sec-7(C) of
the Orissa Education Act, 1969. The Director, Higher
Education will be responsible for scrutinizing the
records of the College with regard to the claim
decided in favour of the petitioner. Payment of arrears
if any is subject to concurrence of Finance Department
in this regard".
4.1. It is contended that this Court while disposing
W.P.(C) No.27147 of 2017 vide order dtd.12.02.2020
under Annexure-5, was pleased to set aside Para-3 of
the order dtd.15.07.2015 and held the Petitioner
entitled to get all the financial benefits as due and
admissible in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal
in GIA Case No.489 of 2011.
4.2. It is contended that challenging the order
dtd.12.02.2020, State initially moved the Hon'ble Apex
Court by filing SLP (Civil) No.120 of 2021. The said
appeal however was disposed of vide order
dtd.20.10.2021, by permitting the State -Machineries
to file intra court appeal against order dtd.12.02.2020.
4.3. It is contended that pursuant to the liberty given
given by the Apex Court, State filed W.A. No.997 of
2021, challenging order dtd.12.02.2020 so passed in
W.P.(C) No.27147 of 2017. However, the said writ
appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order
dtd.22.08.2023 under Annexure-8. Challenging order
dtd.22.08.2023, State again moved the Apex Court by
// 4 //
filing SLP (Civil) Diary No.33341 of 2024. But the leave
petition was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order
dtd.21.10.2024.
4.4. It is accordingly contended that since order
passed by this Court on 12.02.2020 in W.P.(C)
No.27147 of 2017 has been confirmed by this Court as
well as the Apex Court, the order passed by this Court
in W.P.(C) No.27147 of 2017 is required to be
implemented by extending the benefits as due and
admissible. However, on the face of the dismissal of
the leave petition by the Apex Court vide order dtd.
21.10.2024, no further action is being taken to extend
the benefits in terms of the order dtd.12.02.2020.
4.5. It is accordingly contended that appropriate
direction be issued to Opposite Party No.2 to extend the
benefit in terms of the order dtd.12.02.2020 of this
Court.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on
the other hand contended that he has got no further
instruction with regard to implementation of order
dtd.12.02.2020, after dismissal of the SLP vide order
dtd.21.10.2024. Accordingly prays for some time to
obtain further instruction.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties, considering the submissions made and taking
into account the fact that order passed by this Court
// 5 //
on 12.02.2020 in W.P.(C) No.27147 of 2017, has
already been confirmed by the Apex Court while
dismissing the appeal vide order dtd.21.10.2024, it is
of the view that order dtd.12.02.2020 is required to be
implemented by Opposite Party No.2.
6.1. Therefore, this Court while disposing the Writ
Petition directs Opposite Party No.2 to implement order
dtd.12.02.2020 so passed in W.P.(C) No.27147 of 2017
and extend the benefit as due and admissible in favour
of the Petitioner within a period of two (2) months from
the date of receipt of this order.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Vacation Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
