Raghunath Parhi vs State Of Odisha And Others

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

Since the issue involved in the present batch of writ petitions are identical, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

4 The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition INTER ALIA challenging the order dtd.02.04.2019 so passed by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-6.

Vide the said order, the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of RACP w.e.f. 01.01.2013, in consonance with the provisions contained under Rule-9 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 has been rejected.

5.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that as provided under Rule-9 of the aforesaid 1974 Rules, every employee of an Aided Educational Institution shall draw the same pay, dearness allowance and subsistence allowance, in case of suspension, as is admissible to his counterpart in the Government educational institutions under the relevant rules applicable to him and shall ordinarily be paid in the month following the month to which the claim relates directly by Government or by any Office or by any Agency authorized by Government.

5.2. It is contended that even though the benefit of RACP was extended to the employees working in Government Educational Institutions w.e.f. 01.01.2013, but the same was only extended in favour of the present petitioners w.e.f. 01.08.2015. The Petitioner in the present batch of writ petitions claiming extension of the benefit of RACP w.e.f. 01.01.2013, approached this Court in different writ petitions. This Court vide order dtd.22.02.2019 disposed of the matter by permitting the Petitioners to make their grievance before the appropriate authority and for its consideration in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order.

5.3. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Petitioners filed comprehensive representations before Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-5. However, it is contended that without considering the relevancy and effect of Rule-9 of 1974 Rules, claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of RACP w.e.f. 01.01.2013 was rejected only on the ground that as per the decision taken by the Government in its Resolution dtd.05.10.2015 under Annexure-4, the said benefit is only to be extended w.e.f. 01.08.2015.

5.4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that since Rule-9 of the 1974 Rules is very clear with regard to extension of similar pay and allowance as has been extended to the counterpart Government employees, the Petitioners are eligible and entitled to get the benefit from 01.01.2013.

5.5. It is further contended that while considering the claim of the Petitioner, the aforesaid provision contained under Rule-9 has not been taken into consideration at all. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court.

Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties though made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, but he fairly contended that while considering the claim of the Petitioners the relevancy and effect of Rule-9 has not been taken into consideration by Opposite Party No.1.

7 Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that they are governed under the provisions contained under 1974 Rules. This Court in view of the provisions contained under Rule-9 of the 1974 Rules is of the view that claim of the petitioners is required to be considered in consonance with the provision of Rule-9. Since that fact has not been taken into consideration by Opposite Party No.1, while considering the claim, this Court on that ground only is inclined to quash the impugned order dtd.02.04.2019 so available under Annexure-6. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner. It is directed that while taking such a fresh decision, the relevancy and effect of Rule-9 of the 1974 Rules shall be strictly followed and appropriate order be passed in that regard. The entire exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.

Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of.

Photocopy of the order be placed in other connected cases.

……………………….