[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Arati Pattanaik vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 19 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.3064 of 2026
Arati Pattanaik ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Kunal Kumar Swain
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. C.M.Singh, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 19.03.2026
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"Under the above circumstances, it is humbly
prayed that the writ petition may be allowed;
And
(A) a writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ may be
issued directing the opposite parties more particularly
to the Governing Body of the College - opposite party
No.5 to refund / release the deducted amount of
Rs.2,80,363/- in favour of the petitioner along with
interest, within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble
Court;
(B) And any other order / orders or direction /
directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to
the petitioner."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the Petitioner who was working as lecturer in logic and
philosophy under Opposite Party No.5 has approached this Court
with a prayer for direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the
differential amount which has not been paid from out of the
block grant which was sanctioned in her favour. In course of his
argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to various
documents demonstrated before this court that although a sum
of Rs.58,380/- towards current block grant and Rs.3,00,240/-
towards arrear block grant were released in favour of the
institution, to be eventually released in favour of the Petitioner,
however the Opposite Party No.5 has paid a sum of only
Rs.16,130/- & Rs.61,557/- respectively. Being aggrieved by
such conduct of the Opposite Party No.5, the Petitioner
approached the Opposite Party Nos.2 & 4 by filing a several
representations. He further submitted that the Special Secretary-
cum-Director to the Government vide letter dated 15.02.2020 at
Annexure-8 called for an explanation from the principal of the
institution in question. Thereafter, vide letter dated 19.08.2021 at
Anenxure-9, the Opposite Party No.4 requested the Sub
Collector-cum-Governing Body of the institution in question to
look into the grievance of the Petitioner. Finally, vide letter
dated 05.11.2022 as per Anenxure-10, the Govt. of Odisha in the
Department of Higher Education categorically instructed the
principal of all non-government aided colleges that there is no
such provision and the grant-in-aid order to deduct any amount
from the block grant of the teaching faculties. In the meantime,
the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
after her retirement although the Petitioner has been approaching
the Opposite Parties for disbursal of the aforesaid amount which
has been illegally deducted, however no effective steps have
been taken in the meantime to ensure that the Petitioner gets
back the differential amount that has been deducted illegally by
the Opposite Party No.5-Instituion.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that although he has no specific instruction in the matter,
however, taking into consideration the fact that the matter is
pending before the Opposite Party No.4 and as it appears that no
final decision has been taken by the Opposite Party No.4, he
further submitted that he will have no objection if this Court
directs the Opposite Party No.4 to resolve the dispute within a
stipulated period of time, in accordance with law.
7. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel
for both sides, on a careful examination of the he background
facts, further taking note of the documents annexed to the writ
application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present
writ application at stage of admission by granting liberty to the
Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Opposite Party
No.4 taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting
documents within two weeks from today. In such eventuality,
the Opposite Party No.4 shall make every endeavour to resolve
the dispute and to ensure that in the event the Petitioner is
entitled to the differential amount, as claimed by her, and
keeping in view the instruction of the Government vide letter
dated 05.11.2022 at Anenxure-10, the Opposite Party No.4 shall
dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a
speaking and resonated order. In the event it is found that the
Petitioner is entitled to the differential amount and there is no
other legal impediment, necessary follow-up action shall be
taken to ensure that such amount is paid to the Petitioner within
four weeks from the date of taking such decision.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
