Orissa High Court
Unknown vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite ... on 12 January, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17067 of 2023
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India.)
Hemant Kumar Chhotaray ..... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. R.N. Mishra,
Additional Govt. Advocate
along with
Mr. S.K. Samal,
Additional Govt. Advocate
W.P.(C) No.7580 of 2014
Benudhar Senapati ... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.24697 of 2014
Surendra Prasad Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//2//
State of Odisha & Others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22717 of 2016
Basudev Pahan .... Petitioner
Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
.... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.12677 of 2018
Premananda Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25956 of 2019
Gobinda Chandra Biswal .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.18228 of 2019
Nityananda Pani .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//3//
W.P.(C) No.28011 of 2019
Sarojini Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.23111 of 2019
Markanda Behera .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22279 of 2019
Khageswar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21532 of 2019
Khetramohan Kundu .... Petitioner
Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//4//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25478 of 2019
Satyananda Padhan .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25476 of 2019
Lambodara Kara ... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25473 of 2019
Radheshyam Padhan .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25265 of 2019
Prabala Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. T.K. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//5//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25171 of 2019
Bhuban Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25168 of 2019
Vishnu Priya Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25133 of 2019
Rama Chandra Satpathy .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25132 of 2019
Basudev Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//6//
W.P.(C) No.25131 of 2019
Ananda Naik .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25129 of 2019
Kartik Chandra Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25031 of 2019
Rama Dehury .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.24667 of 2019
Bhagabat Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. G. Sethi, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.24666 of 2019
//7//
Aviram Parida .... Petitioner
Mr. G. Sethi, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22989 of 2019
Madan Mohan Jati .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22981 of 2019
Rama Chandra Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22953 of 2019
Sashi Bhusan Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22864 of 2019
Surendra Kumar Gahan .... Petitioner
Mr. M.R. Nayak, Advocate
//8//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22861 of 2019
Garuda Gaditya .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22853 of 2019
Pravakar Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22851 of 2019
Niranjan Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22806 of 2019
Keshab Chandra Nath .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
//9//
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22804 of 2019
Kedar Nath Panda .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22803 of 2019
Antarjyami Giri .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22802 of 2019
Hiralal Pradhan .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27057 of 2019
Dinabandhu Sahoo .... Petitioner
//10//
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27261 of 2019
Ranjan Kumar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Jena, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27317 of 2019
Gangadhar Barada .... Petitioner
Mr. R.R. Das Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27432 of 2019
Himanshu Sekhar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Jena, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27625 of 2019
Dasharathi Panda .... Petitioner
//11//
Mr. J. Kamila, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27630 of 2019
Subash Chandra Parida .... Petitioner
Mr. J. Kamila, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27968 of 2019
Nanda Kishore Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. R.R. Das, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27970 of 2019
Kanak Rashmi Das .... Petitioner
Mr. R.R. Das, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22485 of 2019
Chandramani Parida .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
//12//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22484 of 2019
Swastiram Masara .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22481 of 2019
Binoy Kumar Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22415 of 2019
Padma Charan Pradhan .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22284 of 2019
Dhusasan Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
//13//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22282 of 2019
Mukunda Chandra Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22179 of 2019
Kirtan Bihari Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22177 of 2019
Sarat Kumar Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22176 of 2019
Harish Chandra Giri .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
//14//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22173 of 2019
Maheswar Mahanta .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22171 of 2019
Krushna Chandra Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20573 of 2019
Rabindra Kumar Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20679 of 2019
Udaynath Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
//15//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20680 of 2019
Jatia Pradhan .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20722 of 2019
Bhabani Shankar Nanda .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21019 of 2019
Abhaya Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21028 of 2019
Rabikanta Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//16//
W.P.(C) No.21030 of 2019
Akshaya Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21042 of 2019
Prahallad Chandra Sahoo .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21197 of 2019
Prasanna Kumar Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21198 of 2019
Iswar Chandra Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//17//
W.P.(C) No.21199 of 2019
Sudhakar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21341 of 2019
Umakanta Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. H.S. Deo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21351 of 2019
Brundaban Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21356 of 2019
Lalit Mohan Rath .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//18//
W.P.(C) No.24665 of 2019
Saroj Kumar Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. G. Sethi, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.24481 of 2019
Dillip Kumar Singha .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Jena, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.24389 of 2019
Anirudha Das .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.24388 of 2019
Binod Bihari Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//19//
W.P.(C) No.24379 of 2019
Bijaya Kumar Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.24249 of 2019
Bijaya Kumar Sardar .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.24248 of 2019
Sarat Kumar Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.23849 of 2019
Narendra Kumar Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mohanty, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//20//
W.P.(C) No.23785 of 2019
Sureshan Sankhual .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.23485 of 2019
Benudhar Padhiary .... Petitioner
Mr. B.N. Parida, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.23422 of 2019
Narayan Chandra Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.23421 of 2019
Ashok Kumar Bhoi .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//21//
W.P.(C) No.23390 of 2019
Chandra Sekhar Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.23378 of 2019
Khirod Kumar Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.23375 of 2019
Abhaya Kumar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.23370 of 2019
Dillip Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.23360 of 2019
//22//
Bilasini Rath .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.23002 of 2019
Kailash Nath Manadhata .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22986 of 2019
Satrughan Giri .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Jena, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26525 of 2019
Akshaya Kumar Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26528 of 2019
Dayanidhi Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate
//23//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26530 of 2019
Hemanta Kumar Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26557 of 2019
Nabakishore Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26605 of 2019
Nabakishore Mohanta .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26607 of 2019
Nimai Charan Parida .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//24//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26615 of 2019
Akshaya Kumar Mohanta .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26616 of 2019
Padmarani Prusty .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26690 of 2019
Premalata Pattanaik .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26838 of 2019
Bhajahari Bindhani .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//25//
W.P.(C) No.26843 of 2019
Sachidananda Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27001 of 2019
Basanti Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22801 of 2019
Suratha Chandra Giri .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22799 of 2019
Dinabandhu Mahakud .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//26//
W.P.(C) No.22727 of 2019
Rabindra Kumar Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22638 of 2019
P. Srinivas Achari .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22637 of 2019
Subash Chandra Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22635 of 2019
Rudra Narayan Parida .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22593 of 2019
//27//
Sanatan Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22587 of 2019
Narahari Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22488 of 2019
Manasha Ranjan Dalai .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22487 of 2019
Pitambar Parida .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25479 of 2019
//28//
Chungilal Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25596 of 2019
Ramakanta Bhanja .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25598 of 2019
Nabakishore Nayak .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25599 of 2019
Niranjan Rout .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25643 of 2019
Naba Kishore Choudhury .... Petitioner
//29//
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25720 of 2019
Rajit Palai .... Petitioner
Mr. J. Gupta, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25809 of 2019
Ramesh Chandra Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25811 of 2019
Krupasindhu Tripathy .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25858 of 2019
Sharat Chandra Rath .... Petitioner
//30//
Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25932 of 2019
Muralidhar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25934 of 2019
Khirod Chandra Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25933 of 2019
Banajabasini .... Petitioner
Mohapatra
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25954 of 2019
Gouranga Charan Swain .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
//31//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25957 of 2019
Purna Chandra Mallick .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26165 of 2019
Sanjukta Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26167 of 2019
Akrura Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26403 of 2019
Sarbeswar Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//32//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26406 of 2019
Sandhyarani Devi .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26410 of 2019
Bidyut Prava Kar .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26413 of 2019
Kamalini Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26509 of 2019
Kashinath Bej .... Petitioner
Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//33//
W.P.(C) No.26516 of 2019
Narayan Chandra Sutar .... Petitioner
Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26519 of 2019
Kailash Chandra Lenka .... Petitioner
Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.28219 of 2019
Bhubaneswar Mohanta .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.28220 of 2019
Goura Chandra Mohanta .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//34//
W.P.(C) No.29006 of 2019
Chaitanya Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.29066 of 2019
Jyotsnarani Das .... Petitioner
Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21490 of 2019
Prasanna Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21642 of 2019
Surjya Narayan Badpanda .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//35//
W.P.(C) No.21643 of 2019
Bhagabat Prasad Padhi .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21644 of 2019
Rama Ballav Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21645 of 2019
Poulasti Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21732 of 2019
Niranjan Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. M.R. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//36//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21841 of 2019
Hrushikesh Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21853 of 2019
Mangal Majhi .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21856 of 2019
Prafulla Kumar Mallik .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21957 of 2019
Laxman Kumar Patel .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Samal, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//37//
W.P.(C) No.21958 of 2019
Lalmani Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Samal, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22164 of 2019
Rabindra Kumar Palata .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22165 of 2019
Bilash Chandra Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22166 of 2019
Taranisen Tripathy .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//38//
W.P.(C) No.22167 of 2019
Narahari Mallick .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22168 of 2019
Surendra Kumar Nath .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22170 of 2019
Mukta Kumari Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20514 of 2019
Suresh Chandra Bayee .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20481 of 2019
//39//
Gouri Sankar Padhy .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20440 of 2019
Sarat Chandra Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20436 of 2019
Puspalata Parida .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20434 of 2019
Prahallad Ojha .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20430 of 2019
//40//
Chandra Sekhar Senapati .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20429 of 2019
Batakrishna Das .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20349 of 2019
Trinath Debata .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20272 of 2019
Tomalomala Padhi .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20209 of 2019
Prakash Kumar Bal .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
//41//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20207 of 2019
Sarat Kumar Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20206 of 2019
Makar Charan Sahani .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.19634 of 2019
Baikuntha Nath Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.13646 of 2019
Girish Chandra Mahakul .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
//42//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27338 of 2020
Sakil Ahemmed .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26895 of 2020
Jyotshnamayee .... Petitioner
Mohanty
Mr. S. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26710 of 2020
Manoranjan Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. T.K. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26626 of 2020
Madhu Sudhan Patra .... Petitioner
Mr. J. Gupta, Advocate
and his associates
//43//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25930 of 2020
Nrupati Charan Mohanta .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. R.N. Mishra,
Additional Govt. Advocate
along with
Mr. Sanjay Rath,
Addl. Standing Counsel
W.P.(C) No.25164 of 2020
Bidyadhar Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.25161 of 2020
Mamata Panigrahy .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//44//
W.P.(C) No.24093 of 2020
Nityananda Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.23443 of 2020
Bimbadhar Bhoi .... Petitioner
Mr. S.C.D. Dash, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22888 of 2020
Karunakar Bagh .... Petitioner
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22572 of 2020
Bidhan Chandra Nath .... Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Pratap, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//45//
W.P.(C) No.21786 of 2020
Bhaskar Chandra Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21347 of 2020
Ajit Kumar Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21343 of 2020
Senapati Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.23991 of 2020
Pitambar Hansdah .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20988 of 2020
//46//
Snehalata Dwivedy .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20956 of 2020
Bijaya Kumar Panigrahi .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20650 of 2020
Phakir Mohan Misra .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Parida, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20600 of 2020
Ajit Kumar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20523 of 2020
Kamal Kanta Barik .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
//47//
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20521 of 2020
Rabindra Kumar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20517 of 2020
Kanduru Charan Sahani .... Petitioner
Mr. N. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20501 of 2020
Surendranath Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.19941 of 2020
Kashinath Prusti .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Budhia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//48//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.19868 of 2020
Bichitrananda Patra .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.1052 of 2020
Anupriya Shaw .... Petitioner
Mr. G. Sethi, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.17495 of 2020
Abadhut Raul .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.17486 of 2020
Suresh Ch. Garnaik .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//49//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.17484 of 2020
Bideshi Meher .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.17162 of 2020
Bichitra Ku. Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.16891 of 2020
Gouranga Charan Mallick .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Budhia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.16889 of 2020
Jagadish Maity .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Budhia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//50//
W.P.(C) No.16886 of 2020
Narayan Ch. Naik .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Budhia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.16883 of 2020
Ratikanta Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Budhia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.16876 of 2020
Rabindra Ku. Panigrahi .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Budhia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.16374 of 2020
Dolly Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. A.U. Senapati, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.15807 of 2020
//51//
Bidhyadhar Muduli .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.15629 of 2020
Sayad Obedun Nabi .... Petitioner
Mr. Md. G. Madani, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.15545 of 2020
Bichitra Nanda Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. G.K. Nanda, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.15540 of 2020
Ratnakar Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.15530 of 2020
Sarat Chandra Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
//52//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.15528 of 2020
Simanchala Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.15522 of 2020
Srikrushna Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. G.K. Nanda, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.15339 of 2020
Adikanda Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Parida, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.13982 of 2020
Baikunthanath Parhi .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
//53//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.13980 of 2020
Radhakrushna Patra .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.13979 of 2020
Mahendranath Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.13977 of 2020
Ramesh Ch. Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.13975 of 2020
Ajaya Kumar Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//54//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.13966 of 2020
Purna Chandra Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.13963 of 2020
Gadadhar Parida .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.13421 of 2020
Manche Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.13227 of 2020
Snehalata Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Parida, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//55//
W.P.(C) No.13053 of 2020
Dhirendra Kumar .... Petitioner
Mahapatra
Mr. S.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11965 of 2020
Dinabandhu Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11896 of 2020
Tareshwar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11576 of 2020
Bidyut Kalyani Choudhuri .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11460 of 2020
//56//
Gatikrishna Sethi .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11342 of 2020
Surendra Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11336 of 2020
Bijaya Kumar Dandapat .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11322 of 2020
Purna Chandra Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11311 of 2020
Birajini Nishank .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
//57//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11310 of 2020
Sricharan Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11309 of 2020
Daulat Chandra Das .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.10413 of 2020
Haripada Chand .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.1051 of 2020
Ritanjali Giri@ Paul .... Petitioner
Mr. G. Sethi, Advocate
and his associates
//58//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.29180 of 2020
Sudhakar Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.10085 of 2020
Babaji Charan Mukhi .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.10039 of 2020
Narendra Kumar Lenka .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.10037 of 2020
Priyabrata Mohanty & .... Petitioners
Others
Mr. P.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//59//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.5730 of 2020
Dibakar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.4675 of 2020
Dhruba Charan Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.3889 of 2020
Gadadhara Samantaray .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattnayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.3374 of 2020
Dinabandhu Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//60//
W.P.(C) No.3184 of 2020
Girija Shankar Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.2813 of 2020
Gouranga Charan Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.1883 of 2020
Niranjan Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.1323 of 2020
Krutivas Pradhan & .... Petitioners
Others
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20990 of 2020
//61//
Kunti Panigrahi .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21788 of 2020
Narottam Naik .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.21804 of 2020
Rajendra Kumar Naik .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.22269 of 2020
Padmalochan Sarangi .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.23104 of 2020
Banalata Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate
//62//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20989 of 2020
Rabindra Kumar .... Petitioner
Mohapatra
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20963 of 2020
Ramakanta Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20509 of 2020
Pratap Kumar Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20506 of 2020
Kalyana Kar Tripathy .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
//63//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20505 of 2020
Dasarathi Pati .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20504 of 2020
Dhruba Charan Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20502 of 2020
Kali Charan Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20500 of 2020
Binaya Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//64//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.17488 of 2020
Jishu Khrista Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.16102 of 2020
Laxmikanta Das .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.14549 of 2020
Bhagirath Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.15804 of 2020
Anjali Shee .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//65//
W.P.(C) No.14006 of 2020
Swanalaxmi Parija .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.12058 of 2020
Jogendranath Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11781 of 2020
Ram Krushna Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11773 of 2020
Geetanjali Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11469 of 2020
//66//
Jaleswar Sethi .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11467 of 2020
Shankar Bera .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11464 of 2020
Sushil Kumar Sethi .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11335 of 2020
Bijaya Kumar Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11333 of 2020
Bijaya Kumar Mohanty .... Petitioner
//67//
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11321 of 2020
Barun Kumar Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11320 of 2020
Bhaskar Ch. Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11319 of 2020
Prafulla Kumar Rana .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11318 of 2020
Annapurna Acharya .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
//68//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11316 of 2020
Krupasindhu Sethi .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11315 of 2020
Ganesh Digal .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11314 of 2020
Gokul Chandra Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11313 of 2020
Aurobinda Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
//69//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11312 of 2020
Asit Kumar Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.6730 of 2020
Nrusingha Ch. Samantaray .... Petitioner
Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.6211 of 2020
Akhila Prasad .... Petitioner
Pattanayak
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.6210 of 2020
Bijaya Kumar Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//70//
W.P.(C) No.6208 of 2020
Sanjaya Kumar Sukla .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.6059 of 2020
Anjan Kumar Moharana .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others ... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.24290 of 2020
Niranjan Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. S.C. Devdash, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.34736 of 2020
Chiranjit Mohanta .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//71//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.34733 of 2020
Maheswar Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.34732 of 2020
Prafulla Ku. Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.34522 of 2020
Akshaya Ku. Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.34303 of 2020
Judhisthira Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. P.N. Mohanty, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//72//
W.P.(C) No.33575 of 2020
Gadadhar Senapati .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32942 of 2020
Krutibas Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. P.N. Mohanty, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32758 of 2020
Raghunath Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32756 of 2020
Kumudini Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32755 of 2020
//73//
Ranjan Kumar Naik .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32752 of 2020
Manjulata Tripathy .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32738 of 2020
Pratap Kishore Parija .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32736 of 2020
Pramod Kumar Nanda .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32732 of 2020
Basanta Kumar Pani .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
//74//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32731 of 2020
Ranjan Kumar Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32730 of 2020
Sankarsan Das .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32728 of 2020
Dilip Kumar Das .... Petitioner
Mohpatra
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32462 of 2020
Rabindra Kumar .... Petitioner
Khuntia
Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
//75//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32363 of 2020
Kishore Chandra Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32356 of 2020
Anupama Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. N. Maharana, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32353 of 2020
Tankadhar Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. N. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32349 of 2020
Debi Prasad Rath .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//76//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32348 of 2020
Manjubala Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.32280 of 2020
Mahendra Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.31267 of 2020
Debendra Kumar Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.31121 of 2020
Pramod Kumar Paikaray .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.30942 of 2020
//77//
Bhairabi Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Saa, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.30711 of 2020
Binapani Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.30709 of 2020
Basudev Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.29777 of 2020
Sitaram Das .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.29184 of 2020
//78//
Ananta Putel .... Petitioner
Mr. P.N. Mohanty, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.29170 of 2020
Manjurani Routray .... Petitioner
Mr. P.N. Mohanty, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.19866 of 2020
Ramesh Chandra Pati .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.19863 of 2020
Bipin Bihari Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.19861 of 2020
Pabitra Mohan Barik .... Petitioner
//79//
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.19345 of 2020
Sarada Prasad Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.18187 of 2020
Kshetra Mohan Patel .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.18186 of 2020
Halayudha Padhan .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.18185 of 2020
//80//
Sankirtan Sai .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.8461 of 2020
Sankarsan Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. B.N. Parida, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.8459 of 2020
Basanta Kumar .... Petitioner
Mohapatra
Mr. B.N. Parida, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.13568 of 2020
Anjali Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Parida, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.8456 of 2020
Jayanta Ku. Palai .... Petitioner
Mr. B.N. Parida, Advocate
//81//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.6057 of 2020
Bidyadhar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.1422 of 2020
Gobardhan Mohanta .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.37689 of 2020
Ghanashyam Muduli .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.38274 of 2020
Anirudha Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
//82//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.28841 of 2020
Suresh Kumar Das .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.28391 of 2020
Annapurna Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.28322 of 2020
Godabarish Kheti .... Petitioner
Mr. S.C. Devdash, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27789 of 2020
Jananee Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. J. Gupta, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//83//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.18922 of 2021
Sriharsa Kumar Hota .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.31747 of 2021
Biranchi Narayan .... Petitioner
Mohapatra
Mr. B.B. Ray, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.29516 of 2021
Lingaraj Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26012 of 2021
Bimal Kumar Jagadev .... Petitioner
Mr. B.B. Ray, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//84//
W.P.(C) No.19439 of 2021
Harekrushna Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. M.R. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.18685 of 2021
Nimain Charan Das .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.18684 of 2021
Sakuntala Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.18678 of 2021
Ajay Kumar Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.18673 of 2021
//85//
Srikanta Grahacharya .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.18671 of 2021
Bata Kishor Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.16028 of 2021
Banabihari Acharya .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.15835 of 2021
Harihar Khatua .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.15431 of 2021
Nrusingha Charan Dalai .... Petitioner
//86//
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.15429 of 2021
Girish Chandra Mishra .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.15427 of 2021
Bijoy Kumar Mohanta .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.13841 of 2021
Ratan Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.13038 of 2021
Smt. Rosaline .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
//87//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11935 of 2021
Bimal Kumar Pati .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11858 of 2021
Muralidhar Dutta .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 11818 of 2021
Gayatri Paul .... Petitioner
Mr. S.P. Nath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 11617 of 2021
Bipini Bihari Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Sahu, Advocate
and his associates
//88//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 11233 of 2021
Gopinath Tripathy .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 10108 of 2021
Debaraj Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 9985 of 2021
Rama Chandra Mahavoin .... Petitioner
Mr. J. Gupta, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 8799 of 2021
Sarat Kumar Parida .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//89//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 8018 of 2021
Sudarsan Mangaraj .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 8011 of 2021
Harish Chandra Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. B.N. Parida, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 8010 of 2021
Muralidhar Naik .... Petitioner
Mr. B.N. Parida, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 7289 of 2021
Chandra Sekhar .... Petitioner
Mohanty
Mr. S.S. Pratap, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//90//
W.P.(C) No. 7056 of 2021
Prafulla Kumar Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 6442 of 2021
Sanjubala Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. G.K. Nanda, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 6342 of 2021
Purna Chandra Sur .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.3555 of 2021
Rabindra Nath Naik .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//91//
W.P.(C) No. 5189 of 2021
Gangaram Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 5188 of 2021
Malaya Kumar .... Petitioner
Moharana
Mr. H.K. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 4603 of 2021
Banchhanidhi Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 4502 of 2021
Hadu Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 4501 of 2021
//92//
Subala Patel .... Petitioner
Mr. K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 3814 of 2021
Brajakishore Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 3024 of 2021
Santanu Kumar Dehury .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 3020 of 2021
Sarbeswar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2505 of 2021
Laxmidhar Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
//93//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2502 of 2021
Pramoda Chandra .... Petitioner
Moharana
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1339 of 2021
Gagan Chandra Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 28252 of 2021
Bibhuti Bhusan Samal .... Petitioner
Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 8338 of 2021
Sudarshan Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. B.B. Ray, Advocate
and his associates
//94//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 7559 of 2021
Bhabendra Kumar Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 18412 of 2022
Bijayalaxmi Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 17701 of 2022
Bijaylaxmi Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 17480 of 2022
Kanchanbala Chand .... Petitioner
Mr. N. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//95//
W.P.(C) No. 16060 of 2022
Lokanath Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. N. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 16058 of 2022
Dambarudhar Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. N. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 16057 of 2022
Rajkishore Das .... Petitioner
Mr. N. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 16055 of 2022
Mrutyunjay Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. N. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 16054 of 2022
//96//
Prafulla Kumar Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. N. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 16053 of 2022
Atul Kumar Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. N. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 12494 of 2022
Lobhabati Patel .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 11000 of 2022
Pramod Kumar Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 32981 of 2022
Kalyani Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. G.K. Nanda, Advocate
//97//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 35539 of 2022
Rajalaxmi Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 36444 of 2022
Kanchanbala Moharana .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 32351 of 2022
Gouranga Parida .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 30459 of 2022
Darsaniya Dehuri .... Petitioner
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//98//
W.P.(C) No. 30457 of 2022
Kishori Kumari Patra .... Petitioner
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 29785 of 2022
Dileswar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 29479 of 2022
Binod Bihari Paul .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Samal, Advocate
and her associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 29441 of 2022
Purna Chandra Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 29285 of 2022
//99//
Abhimanyu Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 29284 of 2022
Bibasini Rautray .... Petitioner
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 28468 of 2022
Manasi Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 28464 of 2022
Sk. Imdad Alli .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 28453 of 2022
Niranjan Rout .... Petitioner
//100//
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 26503 of 2022
Pitambar Mahannta .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 24948 of 2022
Keshab Chandra Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Samal, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 24801 of 2022
Kartik Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 24774 of 2022
Ramakanta Das .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
//101//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 24773 of 2022
Akhila Kumar Majhi .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 21704 of 2022
Snigdharani Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 24367 of 2022
Manabhanjan .... Petitioner
Mohapatra
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 21218 of 2022
Madan Mohan Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak,
Advocate
and his associates
//102//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 19323 of 2022
Arjuna Prusty .... Petitioner
Mr. B.B. Ray, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 18496 of 2022
Binod Bihari Khuntia .... Petitioner
Mr. G.K. Nanda, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 9878 of 2022
Jadumani Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 8839 of 2022
Rajanikanta Tripathy .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//103//
W.P.(C) No. 6281 of 2022
Jogendra Rath .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 6212 of 2022
Jagamohan Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 6209 of 2022
Sarat Kumar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 6207 of 2022
Akshya Kumar Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 4175 of 2022
//104//
Rameswar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Jee, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2603 of 2022
Pramod Kishore Sarangi .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2597 of 2022
Brajabandhu Palai .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2495 of 2022
Dhananjaya Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. J.R. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2493 of 2022
Damayanti Mohanta .... Petitioner
Mr. J.R. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
//105//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2488 of 2022
Puriakar Mahanta .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2485 of 2022
Prabhakar Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2284 of 2022
Leelabati Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1862 of 2022
Gadadhar Choudhury .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//106//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1691 of 2022
Gouranga Charan .... Petitioner
Jenamani
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1687 of 2022
Subasa Chandra Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1682 of 2022
Dhruba Charan Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1675 of 2022
Minarva Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//107//
W.P.(C) No. 1661 of 2022
Digambar Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1521 of 2022
Paramananda Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1510 of 2022
Fakirmohan Sethy .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1505 of 2022
Madhusudan Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1503 of 2022
//108//
Prafulla Kumar Giri .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1500 of 2022
Sukumar Giri .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1499 of 2022
Subal Kumar Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1496 of 2022
Ramesh Chandra Kar .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1494 of 2022
Sudhanshu Kumar Sur .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
//109//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1485 of 2022
Anjali Prava Das .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1457 of 2022
Laxmidhar Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. M.R. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1439 of 2022
Nrusingh Charan Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1312 of 2022
Rama Chandra Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//110//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 19738 of 2022
Arun Kumar Kar .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 20227 of 2022
Adwaita Kumar Dey .... Petitioner
Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 23149 of 2022
Surendranath Swain .... Petitioner
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 23790 of 2022
Bhagaban Subudhi .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 23794 of 2022
//111//
Sadhu Charan Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 24807 of 2022
Gajanan Hathi .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 19102 of 2022
Banshidhar Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. B.B. Ray, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1450 of 2022
Bhudaya Pani .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2486 of 2022
Suresh Chandra Patel .... Petitioner
//112//
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2505 of 2022
M.V. Rajeswari .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Rout, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2506 of 2022
Rasananda Lenka .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2510 of 2022
Dibakar Mahanta .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 15832 of 2022
Surendra Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Pattanayak,
Advocate
//113//
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 17179 of 2022
Mayadhar Sundaray .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 17173 of 2022
Ramamani Dei @ Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 17172 of 2022
Sarojini Jena .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 27229 of 2022
Jyotirmayee Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//114//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 23732 of 2022
Dr. Pramod Kumar Acharya .... Petitioner
Mr. B. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 8983 of 2022
Dambarudhar Mahanta .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 8982 of 2022
Surendra Kumar Singh .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 6132 of 2022
Sheak Washek Alli .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
//115//
W.P.(C) No. 17065 of 2022
Prafulla Kumar Pati .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2449 of 2023
Maheswar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2869 of 2023
Sudhir Kumar Moharana .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Sahoo, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 1805 of 2023
Niranjan Das .... Petitioner
Mr. G.K. Nanda, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 966 of 2023
//116//
Srikanta Satpathy .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2451 of 2023
Chakradhar Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra,
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 34315 of 2023
Harinath Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 33845 of 2023
Kamala Kanta Pramanik .... Petitioner
Mr. J.R. Khuntia, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 33818 of 2023
Prakash Chandra Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. D.K. Mohapatra,
//117//
Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 34734 of 2023
Ramesh Chandra Dehury .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 31455 of 2023
Shyam Sundar Dangua .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 30103 of 2023
Upendra Kumar Mishra .... Petitioner
Dr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 28598 of 2023
Dhirendra Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. B. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
//118//
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 26456 of 2023
Sukanta Panda .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 21029 of 2023
Ajaya Das .... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 17068 of 2023
Raka Das .... Petitioner
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 16909 of 2023
Baishnab Charan Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. B. Mohapatra, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
//119//
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 12273 of 2023
Babaji Charan Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. J. Gupta, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No. 32995 of 2023
Shasadhar Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. T.K. Nayak, Advocate
and his associates
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
....................
For Opp. Parties in the
connected cases : Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA
Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA
Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA
Mr. S. Jena, AGA
Mr. S. Rath, ASC
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 13.10.2023 and Date of Judgment: 12.01.2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
//120// Since on the face of the order passed by this Court in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. 2015 (II) ILR-CUT-94, the claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits in terms of the provisions contained under Odisha Aided Educational Institutions' Employees' Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 (in short 1981 Rules) has been rejected and in some of the cases order passed by this Court allowing the benefit in the light of the order passed in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida when was remitted back by the learned Appellate Court in various Writ Appeals, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.
2. This Court in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida while dealing with the provisions contained under Rule 3 of 1981 Rules held as follows in Para 8 of the order:-
"8. For application of 1981 Rules to the staff of recognized non-government colleges, Rule-3 thereof requires that the college concerned must have come under the "direct payment system This apart there is no other requirement. 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 //121// under the direct payment system or getting only some aid in whatever form including 'block grant', he will be covered under the Rules & be entitled to pensionary benefits under the Rules taking into account the amount of aid he receives from the Government as salary & the period of his qualifying service. It is apparent from a plain reading of Rule-3 that the expression, "come under the direct payment system"
qualifies the institution (college/ school) concerned & not a particular staff of the institution. Had it been the intention of the legislature that the expression would qualify the 'staff', then it could have simply said that the staff of aided institutions who are/were receiving their salary under the direct payment system will be covered under the 1981 Rules."
2.1. The order passed by this Court in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida though was challenged by the State before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 761 of 2016, but the SLP was dismissed on 19.01.2016. After dismissal of the matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the order passed in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida was implemented by the Govt. vide letter No. 24680 dtd.30.08.2016. 2.2. It is not disputed that Sarat Chandra Parida was in receipt of block grant under Grant-in-aid Order, 2008 and in terms of the order passed by this Court, Petitioner-Sarat Chandra Parida was extended with the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits in terms of the provisions contained under 1981 Rules. But by taking a plea that //122// Petitioners herein since are not covered under Direct Payment System at any stage during the tenure of their services, they are not covered under the provisions of 1981 Rules and accordingly not eligible to get the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits. Rule 3 of 1981 Rules reads as follows:-
"3. Application of the rules - These rules shall apply to the teaching staff and non-teaching staff of all recognized non-Government Colleges, High Schools, Senior Basic Schools and M.E. Schools which come under the direct payment system and all non- Government Primary Schools including Sanskrit Tols and Junior Basic Schools fully aided by Government in Education and Youth Services Department directly or through Panchayat Samitis constituted under the Odisha Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 or through a Notified Area Council or Municipality constituted under the Odisha Municipality constituted under the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950 :
Provided that Government may, be general or special order as may be issued in that behalf, specify and other educational institution or category of institutions and the staff working therein to whom the rules shall apply."
2.3. Learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners contended that as provided under Rule 3 of the 1981 Rules, the Rule shall apply to the teaching and non-teaching staff of all recognized Non-Govt. Colleges, High Schools, Senior Basic Schools and M.E. Schools, which come under the //123// Direct Payment System. It is contended that Petitioners in all these cases are continuing as teaching and non-teaching staff of recognized Non-Govt. Colleges, High Schools, Senior Basic Schools and M.E. Schools and all are working in Aided Educational Institutions within the meaning of the definition under Sec. 3 (b) of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 (in short "the Act"). It is contended that Sec. 7-C of the Act deals with Grant-in-aid. Section 7-C of the Act reads as follows:-
"7-C. [Grant-in-aid- (1) The State Government shall within the limits of its economic capacity, set apart a sum of money annually for being given as grant-in-aid to private Educational Institution in the State.
(2) No order according permission or approval or recognition under this Act, whether prior to or after the commencement of the Odisha Education (Amendment) Act, 1994, shall entitle any private educational institution to receive grant-in-aid.
(3) Save as otherwise provided, no private Educational Institution which has not been recognized by the State Government under this Act shall be entitled to receive any aid from the State Government.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, rule' executive order or any judgment, decree or order any Court, no grant-in-aid shall be paid and no payment towards salary costs or any other expense shall be made to any private educational institution or for any post or to any person employed in any such institution after the commencement of the Odisha Education (Amendment) Act, 1994, except in accordance with an order or rule made under this Act. Grant-in-aid where admissible under the said rule or order, as the case may be, shall be payable from such date as may be specified in that rule or order or from such date as may be determined by the State Government:
//124// Provided that pending framing of such rule or issue of order, the State Government may, without prejudice to such rule or order, direct that private educational institutions which were receiving grant-in-aid and the posts in such educational institutions in respect of which grant-in-aid was being released shall continue to be paid such amount as grant-in-aid as was being paid to them immediately prior to commencement of the Odisha Education (Amendment) Act, 1994.
[(4-a) The grant-in-aid to be borne by the State Government on account of placement of a teacher in an aided educational institution receiving University Grants Commission scales of Pay under the Career Advancement Scheme, shall be limited to the extent as may be admissible by computing the period of service rendered by him against an approved post with effect from the date of completion of five years of service against such approved post:
Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as to affect the seniority or any other conditions of service of such a teacher.
(4-b) Notwithstanding anything contained in Boy judgment, decree or order of any Court to the contrary, any instructions issued, actions taken or things done on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 in in regard to matters provided in Sub-section (4-a) shall be deemed to have been validly issued, taken or done as if the said Sub-section were in force at all material points of time.] (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law. rule, executive order or any judgment, decree or order of any Court the following categories of private educational institutions shall only be eligible for consideration for payment of grant-in-aid.
[(a) Upper Primary Schools imparting instructions or courses prescribed by the State Government to standards or classes VI and VII or Sanskrit Tolls imparting equivalent courses and Madrasas imparting equivalent courses in standards or classes from I to VII or any one or more of such classes.]
(b) High Schools imparting instructions or course for High School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha or institutions //125// imparting Madhyama Course of Sri Jagannath Sanskrit University and Madrasas imparting equivalent course
(c) Higher Secondary Schools or junior Colleges imparting instructions or course for Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Odisha or institutions imparting Upasastri course of Sri Jagannath Sanskrit University and Madrasas imparting equivalent course.
(d) Colleges imparting course for B.A. B.Sc. or B.Com. degrees of the Utkal, Berhampur and Sambalpur Universities and Shastri of Sri Jagannath Sanskrit University.
(6) No educational institutions imparting any other courses of studies except those provided in Sub-section (5) shall be eligible for grant-in-aid from Government. Educational Institutions established and/ or managed by Urban Local Bodies, Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis and Grama Panchayats, Public Sector Undertakings or Companies or statutory bodies shall not be eligible for grant-in-aid under this Act.
(7) A Governing Body or Managing Committee desirous of availing the facility of grant-in-aid shall make an application for the purpose within such period and shall furnish such information and documents including audited statement of accounts of the institutions as may be prescribed. It shall furnish with the application an undertaking to the effect that grant- in-aid sanctioned for the purpose or meeting part or whole of the salary costs shall be disbursed directly to employees concerned and to refund any excess inadmissible payment that may have been made.] [(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, rule, executive order or any judgment, decree or order of any court, the private Educational Institutions covered under clauses(a) and (b) of sub-section (5) recognized after the 31st March, 2008 shall not be entitled for any Grant-in-Aid from the State Government save as provided in sub-section (9).
(9) The private Educational Institutions referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (5) located in a Grama Panchayat or in a Municipality, which is first recognized //126// after the 31st March, 2011 shall not be entitled for any Grant-in-Aid from the State Government.]"
2.4. It is contended that in terms of the provisions contained under Sec. 7-C of the Act, State Govt. within the limits of its economic capacity introduced various Grant-in-aid Orders (in short GIA) starting from Grant-in-aid Order, 1994. Para 3 & 4 of the Grant-in-aid Order, 1994 reads as follows:-
"3. The following categories of Non-Government Educational Institutions shall only be eligible for consideration for being notified as Aided Educational Institution:
(1) Higher Secondary Schools or Junior Colleges recognised by and affiliated to the Council imparting instructions and presenting regular candidates for Higher Secondary Examinations in Arts, Science or Commerce streams conducted by the said Council. Government (2) Colleges recognized by Government and affiliated to any of the Universities imparting instructions an presenting re of the B.Sc. of B.Com. degree examinations of the Utkal, Berhampur and Sambalpur Universities, with or without Honours.
Note:- Sanskrit Tols, by whatever name called, conducting Upasastri, Sastri for Acharya Courses of Shree Jagannath Sanskrit University shall not be covered by this Order.
(3) No Non-Government Education imparting any courses of study other than those specified in Sub- paras (1) and (2) of this para shall be eligible to be notified as an Aided Educational Institutions or to receive grant-in-aid from Government for any post in such institution.
//127// (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paras (1) and (2) of this para, no educational institution established or managed by any Corporation, Municipality or Notified Area Council, Zilla Parishad, Panchayat Samiti or any Gram Panchayat, any Public Sector Undertaking or Company or Statutory Body, the Union Government or the Government of any other State shall be deemed to be a Non-Government Educational Institution for the purposes of this Order and no such educational institution shall be eligible to be notified as an Aided Educational Institution or to receive grant-in-aid for any post from the State Government under this Order.
(5) No order according permission or approval or recognition either temporary or otherwise under the relevant provisions of the Act, or under any Rule applicable to it, and no order of any University or the Council according affiliation, whether such permission, approval, recognition or affiliation was accorded prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act, or thereafter shall ipso facto entitle any Non-Government Educational Institution to be notified as an Aided Educational Institution or to receive grant-in-aid for any post.
4. For the purposes of this Order, Non-Government Educational Institutions specified in Sub-paras (1) and (2) of para 3 and the posts in such institutions shall be classified into the following categories namely :-
A Category-I (i) Non-Government Educational Institutions and approved posts in such institution which have received grant-in-aid has been sanctioned by Government prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act;
(ii) Other posts in Non-Government Educational Institutions covered under Category-I(i) which were admissible on the basis of workload and prevalent yardstick and had been filled up prior to commencement of the Amendment Act, but in respect of which no grant-in-aid had been sanctioned.
//128// Note: If a question arises whether a post was admissible on the basis of work-load and prevalent yardstick, the decision of the Director shall be final. B-Category-II (i) Colleges imparting instructions in and presenting regular candidates for the B.A., B.Sc. or B.Com examinations with or without Honours of any of the Universities which have been functioning regularly for five years or more by the 1st June, 1994 after obtaining Government Concurrence recognition and affiliation of any University, or for three years of more if such institution is located in an educationally backward district, which has not been notified as an Aided Educational Institution and has not received grant-in-aid from Government for any post.
(ii) Higher Secondary Schools and Junior Colleges conducting courses in Arts, Science and Commerce which have been functioning regularly for 5 years or more by the 1st June, 1994 after obtaining Government concurrence or recognition and of the Council, or for 3 years or more if such an institution is located in any educationally backward district, but which have not been notified as aided Educational Institution and have not received grant-in-aid from Government for any post.
C-Category-III Non-Government Educational Institutions of the categories specified in sub-paras (1) and (2) of para 3 which have already been established and have received recognition of Government and affiliation prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act but do not come within Categories I or II of this paragraph, and such institutions which may be established and granted recognition by Government under the Act or the provision made thereunder and affiliation by the University by the Council, as the case may be after the commencement of this order." 2.5. It is contended that after extending the benefit of Grant- in-aid in terms of GIA Order, 1994, State Govt. taking //129// recourse to the provisions contained under Sec. 7-C of the Act introduced Grant-in-aid Order, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2014 & 2017 at different point of time inter alia framing the guideline and entitlement of teaching and non-teaching staff of Aided Educational Institutions to get the benefit of Grant- in-aid. While Para 10 of GIA Order, 1994 prescribes the modality of payment of Grant-in-aid, Para 3 & 4 of Grant-in- aid Order, 2004 deals with the entitlement and modality of payment of Grant-in-aid.
2.6. It is contended that in terms of GIA Order, 1994, Grant- in-aid payable to an Aided Educational Institution is the sum total of Grant-in-aid admissible towards salary cost at rates specified for each admissible and approved post from and after the date of eligibility and the Grant-in-aid so payable shall be disbursed directly to the incumbents appointed and holding the post eligible for Grant-in-aid either by the Director or through any other agency so authorized by the Govt. But under GIA Order, 2004, the concept of block grant was introduced and quantum of block grant includes the amount representing the initial pay of the teaching and non-teaching employees of such institutions on //130// that date in the pre-revised scale of pay including increments notionally accrued as on the date of the notification, plus Dearness Allowances as admissible thereon.
2.7. Similarly, in GIA Order, 2008 Para 11 while deals with the modality of payment, Para 5(2) of GIA Order, 2009 deals with such modality. Similarly, under GIA Order, 2014 Para 9 of the order deals with the modality of payment of Grant-in- aid.
2.8. While as provided under Para 3(3) of GIA Order, 2004, block grant is to be placed through the Director at the disposal of the Secretary of the Governing Body/Managing Committee of the concerned Education Institutions proportionately either on quarterly or monthly basis, Para 11 of GIA Order, 2008 deals with disbursement of block grant in favour of an employee to be disbursed directly either by the Director or through any other agency so authorized by the Govt. Similarly, under Para 5(2) of GIA Order, 2009, payment of block grant shall be placed through the Director at the disposal of the Secretary of the Governing Body of the Educational Institution and Secretary of the Governing Body //131// at whose disposal the block grant is so placed shall utilize the grant in the manner and purposes as may be specified by the Director and furnish utilization certificate thereof. As per Para 11 of GIA Order, 2014, Grant-in-aid was paid directly in favour of the employee.
2.9. Learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners contended that taking into account the economic capacity of the State as provided under Section 7-C of the Act, State Govt. introduced G.I.A. Order, 1994 and thereafter G.I.A. Order, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2014 & 2017. While under GIA Order, 1994, the employees of Aided Educational Institutions became eligible to get the benefit of Grant-in-aid equal to full salary cost, under GIA Order, 2004 onwards, the said Grant was extended in the shape of block grant and the quantum was specified along with the mode of payment. But the fact remains that after introduction of the Grant-in- aid Order, 2017, employees who are covered under various Grant-in-aid Orders and in receipt of full block grant in shape of block grant became eligible to receive Grant-in-aid as specified under Para 3 of the order.
//132// 2.10. It is contended that Grant-in-aid under GIA Order, 1994 and block grant under GIA Order, 2004 onwards were released in favour of teaching and non-teaching staff of Aided Educational Institutions, who are recognized by the Govt. But the mode of payment was either directly to the employees concerned or though the Secretary of the Governing Body/Managing Committee as the case may be. It is also contended that the word "Direct Payment System" is no where defined either under the Odisha Educational Act or under any of the GIA Order.
2.11. It is further contended that as provided under Rule 9 of the Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of teachers and members of the staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (in short 1974 Rules), every employee of an Aided Educational Institutions shall draw the same pay, Dearness Allowances and Subsistence Allowances in case of suspension as is admissible to his counterpart in the Govt. Educational Institutions under the relevant rules. It is contended that this Court in its Judgment dtd.19.10.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 34453 of 2021 and batch has already held that the provisions contained under //133// 1974 Rules will be applicable to the employees of Aided Educational Institutions, who are in receipt of block grant to the same extent as is applicable to employees in receipt of grant-in-aid under G.I.A. Order, 1994. Therefore, in view of the applicability of the 1974 Rules to the employees of Aided Educational Institutions, who are in receipt of block grant, Petitioners herein who are employees working in Aided Educational Institutions and are in receipt of block grant are also eligible and entitled to draw same pay and allowances as is admissible to his counterpart in the Govt. Educational Institutions.
2.12. It is also contended that prior to framing of Grant-in- aid Order 1994, teachers of Aided Educational Institutions were released with their salary in terms of the resolution/circulars issued by the Govt. in the Education & Health Services Department on 12.06.1974 and subsequent circulars issued at different point of time. It is contended that in terms of the circulars issued by the Govt. on 12.06.1974 onwards, employees of Aided Educational Institutions were in receipt of their salary directly.
//134// 2.13. It is also contended that since the term Direct Payment System has not been defined either under the Act or under the Rules, taking into account the dictionary meaning of the term, it is to be held that employees in receipt of grant-in-aid under GIA order, 1994 and employees in receipt of block grant under GIA Order, 2004 onwards are getting the grant directly from the Govt., subject to the provisions contained under Sec. 7-C of the Act. 2.14. Even though this Court in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida held accordingly and benefit of pension was also extended in favour of the Petitioner-Sarat Chandra Parida, but by taking a plea that Petitioners are not in receipt of their salary under the Direct Payment System, the claim to get the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits in the light of the order passed in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida was rejected.
2.15. It is also contended that prior to introduction of Grant-in-aid Order, 1994, this Court in the case of Patras Soreng Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (1993 (II) OLR 272) in Para 3, while interpreting Rule 3 of the 1981 Rules held as follows:-
//135//
"3. Employees of aided educational institutions are entitled to retirement benefits as provided in the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees' Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 (hereinafter 'the Rules'). Rule 3 of the Rules, however, states that the same shall apply. Inter alia to the teaching staff, as was the petitioner, of such schools which come under the "direct payment system". The proviso to that rule permits the Government to apply the Rules to any other educational institution or category of institutions as may be specified by general or special order. It is the requirement of the school to be under the "direct payment system" which has stood in the way of the petitioner in getting the benefit under the Rules inasmuch as the case of opp. parties 1 and 2, as already noted, is that the school in question does not come under the direct payment system. It is because of this that the vires of Rule 3 have been assailed in this petition, inter alia, on the ground that it is discriminatory. As, however, we are satisfied that despite what has been stated in rule by the petitioner is entitled to the benefits under the Rules, we are not addressing ourselves on the question of validity of Rule 3 on the ground that it is discriminatory." 2.16. It is also contended that by taking a plea that Petitioners are not coming within the definition of Direct Payment System, State Govt. cannot deprive the Petitioners to get the benefit of pension in terms of the 1981 Rules as pension is not a bounty and the action of the State is also discriminatory and not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners relied on the decisions of the //136// Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 2, 12.4, 20, 26 and 28 to 32 has held as follows:-
"2. Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 ("1972 Rules", for short) form a class as a whole? Is the date of retirement a relevant consideration for eligibility when a revised formula for computation of pension is ushered in and made effective from a specified date? Would differential treatment to pensioners related to the date of retirement qua the revised formula for computation of pension attract Article 14 of the Constitution and the element of discrimination liable to be declared unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14? These and the related questions debated in this group of petitions call for an answer in the backdrop of a welfare State and bearing in mind that pension is a socio-economic justice measure providing relief when advancing age gradually but irrevocably impairs capacity to stand on one's own feet.
XXX XXX XXX 12(4). The principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is not that the same rules of law should be applicable to all persons within the Indian territory or that the same remedies should be made available to them irrespective of differences of circumstances. It only means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same.
//137//
XXX XXX XXX
20. The antequated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1971) 2 SCC 330 : AIR 1971 SC 1409 : 1971 Supp SCR 634 : (1971) 1 LLJ 557] wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh. [(1976) 2 SCC 1 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 172 : AIR 1976 SC 667 :
(1976) 3 SCR 360] XXX XXX XXX
26. Let us therefore examine what are the goals that pension scheme seeks to subserve? A pension scheme consistent with available resources must provide that the pensioner would be able to live: (i) free from want, with decency, independence and self-
respect, and (ii) at a standard equivalent at the pre- retirement level. This approach may merit the criticism that if a developing country like India cannot provide an employee while rendering service a living wage, how can one be assured of it in retirement? This can be aptly illustrated by a small illustration. A man with a broken arm asked his doctor whether he will be able to //138// play the piano after the cast is removed. When assured that he will, the patient replied, "that is funny, I could not before". It appears that determining the minimum amount required for living decently is difficult, selecting the percentage representing the proper ratio between earnings and the retirement income is harder. But it is imperative to note that as self-sufficiency declines the need for his attendance or institutional care grows. Many are literally surviving now than in the past. We owe it to them and ourselves that they live, not merely exist. The philosophy prevailing in a given society at various stages of its development profoundly influences its social objectives. These objectives are in turn a determinant of a social policy. The law is one of the chief instruments whereby the social policies are implemented and "pension is paid according to rules which can be said to provide social security law by which it is meant those legal mechanisms primarily concerned to ensure the provision for the individual of a cash income adequate, when taken along with the benefits in kind provided by other social services (such as free medical aid) to ensure for him a culturally acceptable minimum standard of living when the normal means of doing so failed". (See Social Security Law by Prof. Harry Calvert, p. 1) XXX XXX XXX
28. Pensions to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. However, as held in Douge v. Board of Education [302 US 74 : 83 L Ed 57] a pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expenses of living. This appears to be the nearest to our approach to pension with the added qualification //139// that it should ordinarily ensure freedom from undeserved want.
29. Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon.
30. The discernible purpose thus underlying pension scheme or a statute introducing the pension scheme must inform interpretative process and accordingly it should receive a liberal construction and the courts may not so interpret such statute as to render them inane (see American Jurisprudence, 2d,
881).
31. From the discussion three things emerge: (i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules //140// which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution; (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed that the quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the average emoluments drawn during last three years of service reduced to 10 months under liberalised pension scheme. Its payment is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement, that is, since the cessation of the contract of service and that it can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure.
32. Having succinctly focussed our attention on the conspectus of elements and incidents of pension the main question may now be tackled. But, the approach of court while considering such measure is of paramount importance. Since the advent of the Constitution, the State action must be directed towards attaining the goals set out in Part IV of the Constitution which, when achieved, would permit us to claim that we have set up a welfare State. Article 38(1) enjoins the State to strive to promote welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effective as it may a social order in which justice -- social, economic and political
-- shall inform all institutions of the national life. In particular the State shall strive to minimise the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities. Article 39(d) enjoins a duty to see that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women and this directive should be understood and interpreted in the //141// light of the judgment of this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India [(1982) 1 SCC 618 : 1982 SCC (L&S) 119] . Revealing the scope and content of this facet of equality, Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Court observed as under: (SCC p. 619, para 1) "Now, thanks to the rising social and political consciousness and the expectations aroused as a consequence, and the forward-looking posture of this Court, the underprivileged also are clamouring for their rights and are seeking the intervention of the court with touching faith and confidence in the court. The Judges of the court have a duty to redeem their constitutional oath and do justice no less to the pavement-dweller than to the guest of the five-star hotel."
Proceeding further, this Court observed that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. If that can't be done when they are in service, can that be done during their retirement? Expanding this principle, one can confidently say that if pensioners form a class, their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. Article 39(e) requires the State to secure that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and children of tender age are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength. Article 41 obligates the State within the limits of its economic capacity and development, to make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to provide assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want. Article 43(3) requires the State to //142// endeavour to secure amongst other things full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities."
2.17. Learned counsels for the Petitioners also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastav and Ors. (2015) 1 SCC 347), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identical situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 22 and 23 of the decision has held as follows:-
"22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under.
22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well- recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays //143// as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 226] ). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.
23. Viewed from this angle, in the present case, we find that the selection process took place in the year 1986. Appointment orders were issued in the year 1987, but were also cancelled vide orders dated 22-6- 1987. The respondents before us did not challenge //144// these cancellation orders till the year 1996 i.e. for a period of 9 years. It means that they had accepted the cancellation of their appointments. They woke up in the year 1996 only after finding that some other persons whose appointment orders were also cancelled got the relief. By that time, nine years had passed. The earlier judgment had granted the relief to the parties before the Court. It would also be pertinent to highlight that these respondents have not joined service nor working like the employees who succeeded in earlier case before the Tribunal. As of today, 27 years have passed after the issuance of cancellation orders. Therefore, not only was there unexplained delay and laches in filing the claim petition after a period of 9 years, it would be totally unjust to direct the appellants to give them appointment as of today i.e. after a period of 27 years when most of these respondents would be almost 50 years of age or above."
2.18. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. C. Lalitha in Para 29 of the Judgment has held as follows:-
"29. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well settled that the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. It may be true that this Court took notice of the subsequent events, namely, that in the meantime she had also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a Category I post but the direction to create a supernumerary post to adjust her must be held to have been issued only with a view to accommodate her therein as otherwise she might have been reverted and not for the purpose of conferring a benefit to which she was not otherwise entitled to."
//145// 2.19. It is also contended that State being a model employer, it cannot discriminate the employees of Aided Educational Institutions by taking the plea that Petitioners since are not covered under the Direct Payment System, they are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. In support of the same, learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha & Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty & Ors. (2011) 3 SCC
436. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 59 of the said Judgment has held as follows:-
"59. The rule of law inhibits arbitrary action and also makes it liable to be invalidated. Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above board but should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. Procedural fairness is an implied mandatory requirement to protect against arbitrary action where statute confers wide power coupled with wide discretion on an authority. If the procedure adopted by an authority offends the fundamental fairness or established ethos or shocks the conscience, the order stands vitiated. The decision- making process remains bad. [Vide Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corpn. [(1988) 1 SCC 166 :
AIR 1988 SC 157] , Rash Lal Yadav (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [(1994) 5 SCC 267 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1063 : (1994) 27 ATC 855] and Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651]."
//146// 2.20. It is also contended that this Court in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul Vs. State of Odisha (2016 (I) ILR- CUT-1162) has already held that benefit of appointment under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is also applicable to the employees of Aided Educational Institutions, who are in receipt of block grant. Similarly, this Court in the case of Radharani Samal Vs. State of Odisha, 123(2016) CLT 218 has held that employees, who are in receipt of block grant are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of trained graduate scale of pay on completion of 48 years of age. Similarly, this Court in its Judgment dtd.03.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 34453 of 2021 and batch has already held that the provisions contained under 1974 Rules is also applicable to the employees of Aided Educational Institutions, who are in receipt of block grant to the extent it is applicable to the employees who are in receipt of grant-in-aid under GIA Order, 1994.
2.21. It is accordingly contended that in view of the decisions as cited supra and the provisions contained under the Act vis-à-vis the Grant-in-aid Orders, Petitioners, on the ground that they are not covered under the Direct Payment //147// Scheme, cannot be denied of the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits in terms of the provisions contained under the 1981 Rules. The rejection of the claim of the Petitioner as well as non-consideration of the claim on that score is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court.
3.Per Contra, Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate while supporting the impugned order of rejection, passed in different Writ Petitions as well as non- applicability of the provisions, contended that Rule-3 of the 1981 Rules is very specific to the effect that unless the teaching and non-teaching staff of recognised, non- Government Colleges, High Schools etc. coming under the Direct Payment System and are fully aided, benefit of Rule-3 cannot be extended. It is also contended that as provided under the proviso to Rule-3, no notification as yet has been issued by the Government making applicable the provisions of Rule-3 to the employees of aided educational institutions, who are in receipt of Block Grant, as the teaching and non- teaching staffs of all those institutions are not coming under the definition of Direct Payment System nor they are fully //148// aided. It is contended that provisions of Rule-3 of the 1981 Rules is only applicable to the employees, who are in receipt of Grant-in-Aid under G.I.A Order, 1994, as they are getting the grant-in-aid directly with payment of full salary cost and the institutions being fully aided.
3.1. It is also contended that as provided under Rule 3-A of the 1981 Rules, the benefit of 1981 Rules is not applicable to persons appointed to services and posts in aided educational institutions on or after the 1st day of January, 2005.
Relying on the provisions contained under Rule 5(1) of the 1981 Rules, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that full pension admissible under the Rules is not to be given as a matter of fact to a post unless the service rendered has been approved by the pension sanctioning authority.
3.2. It is also contended that only the employees, who are in receipt of Grant-in-Aid under G.I.A Order, 1994 are getting the benefit of Grand-in-Aid under the Direct Payment System and all those institutions are fully aided. Since the employees who are in receipt of Block-Grant in terms of //149// G.I.A Order, 2004 onwards are not getting the benefit of Grant-in-Aid under the Direct Payment System nor those institutions are fully aided, the benefit of Rule-3 cannot be extended in favour of the employees who are in receipt of Block Grant. It is accordingly contended that in spite of the order passed by this Court in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida with its due implementation, since the very provisions contained under Rule 3 is not applicable to the employees working in Block Grant institutions, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Opposite Parties in rejecting the claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits in terms of the 1981 Rules.
3.3. With regard to the meaning of Direct Payment System, learned State Counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Patras Soreng. Relying on the said decision, learned State Counsel contended that this Court in Paragraph-4 of the said judgment has held as follows:
"4. We have taken the aforesaid view because the school in question is admittedly fully aided and Rule 9(1) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 //150// has stated, after its amendment in 1976, that every employee of an Aided Educational Institution shall ordinarily be paid in the month following the month to which the claim relates "directly by the Government or by any Officer or by any Agency authorised by Government". The position, therefore, is that after the aforesaid 1974 Rules were amended in 1976, a member of the staff of an Aided Educational Institution receives his salary directly from the Government, and, as such, such a school has to be regarded as under
"the direct payment system* of which Rule 3 of the Rules speaks of. It may be that before the aforesaid 1974 Rules were amended in 1976, there used to be a distinction between schools receiving aid under the direct payment system and otherwise, which would appear to be so, inter alia, from what has been stated in Government Resolution No. 250011/EYS dated July 13, 1978 which has said something about the direct payment system being not applicable to educational institutions run by the Christian Minority Community. The 1976 amendment, to which we have referred earlier, however, leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that a school which is fully aided, as is the one at hand, has to be regarded as one under the "direct payment system" of which mention has been made in Rule 3 of the Rules. As to the aforesaid Government Resolution, we would say that though this seeks to make a distinction between minority institutions and non- minority institutions as regards the direct payment system, the same cannot override the statutory rules of 1974 as amendment in 1976, because of which that resolution and for that matter such other resolutions could not and did not hold the field."
3.4. It is contended that since the employees who are in receipt of Block Grant are neither coming under the Direct Payment System nor they are fully aided, even on the face of the order passed in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida, they //151// are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of Rule-3 of the 1981 Rules.
3.5. It is also contended that the provisions contained under Paragraph-10 (i) of the Grant-in-Aid Orders, 1994, is not there in Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 or in any other G.I.A Orders issued subsequently. Paragraph-10(1) of the G.I.A Order, 1994 is reproduced hereunder:-
"10(1). Grant-In-aid payable to an Aided Educational Institution shall be the sum total of grant- in-aid admissible towards salary cost at rates specified below for each admissible and approved post from and after the date of eligibility and the grant-in- aid so payable shall be disbursed directly to the incumbents validly appointed and holding the post eligible for grant-in-aid, either by the Director or trough any other agency so authorized by Government, Government may from time to time determine the mode and form of disbursement.
Provided that Government may require that any part of the grant-in-aid payable as arrears shall be deposited in the provident fund or that it may be paid in some other form."
3.6. Learned State Counsel also relied on the provisions contained under Paragraph-11(1) of the G.I.A Order, 1994 which is reproduced hereunder:
"11.(1) Admissible salary cost for the purpose of computation of grant-in-aid payable against any post shall mean pay at the lowest stage in the scale of pay //152// with one increment for each completed year of service after the date of commencement of payment of grant-in- aid and shall include D.A as the rates made applicable by the State Government from time to time. The scale of pay prescribed by the State Government for Non- Government institutions for the that post. Provisions of the Odisha Service Code relating to grant of increment shall mutatis mutandis apply for determining eligibility for earning increments subsequent to the first date of admission of a post into the fold of grant-in-aid. Provisions of the Odisha Service Code relating to payment of subsistence allowance shall mutatis mutandis apply to an employee holding an aided post who is placed under suspension by the competent authority provided that approval of Director has been obtained within the period stipulated in the relevant Rules.
Illustrations: (a) An approved post in an educational institution notified as an aided educational institution coming within Category-II completes the qualifying period on 1.5.1993. The date of eligibility of this post will therefore be 1.6.1994. The Scale of Pay of the post as prescribed by the State Government is say 2,000- 50-2,500-100-3,500/-. The admissible salary cost on 1.6.1994 shall be Rs.2,000/- plus D.A at the rates made applicable by the State Government . The post will be entitled to receive grant-in-aid at the rate of 1/3rd of this amount. Ordinarily the post will be eligible to earn two increments of Rs.50/- each on 1.6.1995 and 1.6.1996. With effect from 1.6.1996, the admissible salary cost shall be Rs.2,100/plus D.A., as admissible and the post will be eligible to receive grant- in-aid at the rate of 2/3rd of this amount.
(b) An approved post admissible on the basis of workload and yardstick was first filled up on 1.1.1983.
The post completes nine years on 31.12.1991. The college in which this post has been continuing received concurrence and affiliation from the session 1981-82. This post will be eligible to receive grant-in-aid from 1.6.1994 but at the rate of full salary cost at the initial //153// stage of the scale of pay applicable plus D.A as admissible on that pay."
3.7. It is contended that in view of the provisions contained under Paragraph-10(1) and 11(1) of G.I.A Order, 1994, employees who are in receipt of Grant-in-Aid under G.I.A Order, 1994 since are coming under the Direct Payment System and the institutions in question are fully aided, the employees working in Block Grant institutions since are not receiving the Grant-in-Aid under the Direct Payment System nor the institutions are fully aided, they cannot get the benefit of the provisions contained under Rule-3 of the 1981 Rules.
3.8. It is also contended that even though the virus of Rule- 3 of 1981 Rules was challenged before this Court in the case of Patras Soreng, but this Court did not interfere with the said prayer while disposing the matter vide its order dt.18.06.1993. In the alternate, this Court held that a school, which is fully aided has to be regarded as one under the Direct Payment System of which mention has been made in Rule-3 of the 1981 Rules.
//154// 3.9. Making all these submissions, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that since employees working in Block Grant institutions are neither coming under the Direct Payment System nor those institutions are fully aided, they are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 3 of the 1981 Rules and as such there is no illegality or irregularity with regard to rejection of the claim vide the impugned order in question in different Writ Petitions. 3.10. Learned State Counsel also relied on the provisions contained under Paragraph-4 of Resolution dt.17.03.1979 issued by the Government in the Education Services Department. Vide the said resolution, principle of Grant-in- Aid to non-Government Aided High Schools was issued. Paragraph-4 of the said Resolution held as follows:-
"4. Girls' High Schools in ex-State areas and educational backward area are eligible for a minimum grant at the rate of Rs.75/- per month, 80% D.A and reimbursement of the entire loss in fee income, soon after recognition of Class VIII and thereafter, they are eligible for recurring grant at the rate of three-fourth or net deficit or full net deficit, as the case may be. In other areas all the above facilities except Rs.75 P.M during the formation period are prescribed."
//155// 3.11. It is also contended that this Court while dealing with the matter in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida held that the expression "Come under the Direct Payment System"
qualifies the institution concerned and not a particular staff of the institution. This Court further held that once the college comes under the Direct Payment System, then even if a staff is not getting full salary from the Government under the Direct Payment System, he will be covered under these Rules. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Another Vs. Anup Kumar Senapati and Another 2019 (19) SCC 626 in Paragraph-37 has held as follows.
"37. Considering the various provisions of Section 7-C of the Act and the Order of 1994, it is apparent that institutions which received grant-in-aid and post with respect of which grant-in-aid was being released, have been saved. The reference of the institution means and includes the posts. They cannot be read in isolation. It cannot be said that right to claim grant-in- aid has been fixed, accrued, settled, absolute or complete at the time of the repeal of the order of 2004. As per the meaning in Black's Law Dictionary, vesting has been defined thus:
"vest, vb. (15c) 1. To confer ownership (of property) upon a person.
2. To invest (a person) with the full title to property. 3. To give (a person) an immediate, fixed right of present or future enjoyment. 4.
//156// Hist. To put (a person) into possession of land by the ceremony of investiture. - vesting, n."
4. To the submissions made by the learned State Counsel, learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners contended that the word "Direct Payment System" has neither been defined in the Act nor in the Rules. But the word "Direct Payment" as explained in the law of Lexicon means a payment directly to the obligee and not to an intermediary. Similarly, according to Study.Com, Direct Payment is electronic funds transfer, electronic funds withdrawal, direct payment or direct withdrawal. As found from Wikipedia, "Direct Payments Scheme" is a UK Govt. initiative in the field of social services that gives users money directly to pay for their own care, rather than the traditional route of a local Govt Authority providing care for them.
4.1. It is also contended that in view of the decision rendered by the High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C ) No.2763 of 2010, (Faseela K.P V. State of Kerala & Other) decided on 17.03.2015, only when the appointing authority makes an appointment and forward the same for approval, the appointment will take effect only after such approval given //157// by the Educational Officer. Only other such approval of the appointment, consequential benefit arising under the direct payment schemes of the Government will come into play. View of the High Court of Kerala reflected in Para-9 of the order is reproduced hereunder.
"It is only when the appointing authority makes an appointment and forward the same for approval to the Educational Officer along with required particulars and documents, the authority can take note f the appointment and approve the same. Then only the appointment will take effect, making the teacher eligible for approval of the appointment and for consequential benefits arising under the direct payment scheme of the Government."
Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners also relied on a decision of this Court reported in 1994(II) OLR- 534 (Kshitish Ch. Pati & Another Vs. State of Orissa & Others). This Court in Paragraph-4 of the order has held as follows:-
"4. Approval of a teacher becomes necessary for the purpose of making payment of the salary under the direct payment scheme and it has got no connection with the appointment of a teacher given by the Managing Committee."
4.2. It is further contended that while issuing Grant-in-Aid Order, 2004 onwards, Government at different point of time issued different guideline for payment of Grant-in-Aid. While under G.I.A Order, 2004 under Paragraph-3(3), Grant-
//158// in-Aid is payable to an employee through the Secretary on being placed by the Government, under Paragraph-11 of G.I.A Order, 2008, such Block Grant is disbursed directly to the incumbent validly appointed and holding the post. Similarly, in the Grant-in-Aid Order, 2009 vide Paragraph- 5(2), such Block Grant is payable through the Secretary on being placed by the Director at the disposal of the Secretary. But in the 2014 Grant-in-Aid Order, vide Paragraph-9, Block Grant so payable is disbursed directly to the incumbent validly appointed.
4.3. But after coming into force of Grant-in-Aid Order, 2017, all the employees covered under the Grant-in-Aid Order 2008, 2009 were allowed to receive full Grant-in-Aid in shape of Block Grant as on 31st December, 2017.
Paragraph-3(3) of G.I.A Order, 2004, Paragraph-11 of G.I.A Order, 2008, Pagragraph-5(2) of the G.I.A Order, 2009 and Paragraph-9 of the G.I.A Order, 2014 are reproduced hereunder:
GIA Order, 2004: 3(3) The block grant shall be placed, through the Director, at the disposal of the Secretary of the Governing Body of the concerned educational institution proportionately either on quarterly or monthly basis.
//159// GIA Order, 2008: 11. Disbursement of Block Grant:- Block Grant payable to an Aided Education Institution shall be the sum total of Grant-in-aid admissible towards salary cost at the rate specified in this order for each admissible and approved post from and after the date of eligibility and the Block Grant so payable shall be disbursed directly to the incumbents validly appointed and holding the post eligible for Grant-in-aid, either by the Director or through any other agency so authorized by Government, Government may from time to time determine the mode and form of disbursement.
GIA Order, 2009: 5(2) The Block shall be placed, through the Director, at the disposal of the Secretary of Governing Body of the concerned educational institution proportionately either on quarterly or monthly basis.
G.I.A Order, 2014: 9. Grant-in-Aid in the shape of Block Grant payable to an Aided Educational Institution shall be the sum total of Grant-in-Aid admissible towards salary cost at the rate specified in this Order for each admissible and approved post from and after the date of eligibility and the Block Grant so payable shall be disbursed directly to the incumbents validly appointed and holding the post eligible for Grant-in-Aid, either by the Director or through any other agency so authorised by the Government. The Government may from time to time determine the mode and form of disbursement.
4.4. Relying on the provisions contained under different paragraphs in G.I.A Order, 2004 onwards with regard to mode of payment, learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners contended that even though Government at different point of time is releasing the grant-in-aid either //160// directly to the concerned employee or through the Secretary of the Governing Body or Managing Committee as the case may be, but the fact remains that it is only after release of the Grant by the Government that the concerned employee is getting the same either directly or through the Secretary.
Therefore, it is to be held that such payment is being made directly by the Government. It is accordingly contended that since there is no hard and fast rule governing the field with regard to payment of Grant-in-Aid under the Direct Payment System and Government while issuing different Grant-in-Aid Order is prescribing different modalities for release of the same, for such technicality, Petitioners, who are employees of recognised aided educational institution cannot be denied of the benefit of pension in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 3 of 1981 Rules. In support of the submission that on mere technicality, benefit cannot be denied, learned counsels appearing for the parties relied on the following decisions:
(i) (1989) 12 SCC 691 (Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. Vs. V.R. Rudani & Ors.) //161//
(ii) (2012) 12 SCC 331 (Ramesh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) In the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust, Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph-22 has held as follows:
"22. Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, Professor de Smith states: "To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract." [ Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 4th Edn., p. 540] We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available "to reach injustice wherever it is found". Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition."
In the case of Ramesh Ahluwalia, Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph-15 has held as follows:
//162// "15. We must, however, notice that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition also on the ground that it involves disputed questions of fact.
Mr. Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the appellant actually has not been able to contradict any of the proven facts. According to the learned counsel, the remedy of the appellant is to file a civil suit, if so advised. Therefore, the writ petition has been rightly dismissed by the High Court. Mr Parikh, learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that the civil suit would not be an alternative efficacious remedy in the facts of this case. In support of this submission, he brought to our notice certain observations made by a Constitution Bench of this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481] . The learned counsel pointed out that, in the aforesaid case, this Court had directed that the Appellate Tribunal should be set up in each district of each State to hear appeals over the decisions taken by the disciplinary bodies of even purely private educational institutions. It was emphasised that speedy resolution of the disputes between the teachers and the management is in the interest of all i.e. students, management as well as the teachers concerned. It appears that at the time when the appeal of the appellant was heard, such a tribunal had not been set up in the State of Punjab. The appeal filed before the Disciplinary Committee was also not referred to the District Judge by the Disciplinary Committee."
4.5. In support of the stand that Petitioners cannot be discriminated and are also eligible to get the benefit of the provision contained under Rule 3 of 1981 Rules, learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners relied on the following decisions:
//163//
1. 2022 SCC Online SC 641 (Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation).
2. Civil Appeal No.3860-3862 of 2020 (State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Brahmaputra Metallics Ltd.,Ranchi & Another) decided on 01.12.2020.
3. Civil Appeal No.6994 of 2021 (Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair Vrs. Cochin University of Science & Technology represented by its Registrar & Others), decided on 1.12.2021
4. Civil Appeal No.7230 of 2012 (Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Another Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation Retired Employees Union), decided on 22.02.2021.
5. Spl. Leave Petition Civil (Diary) No.27824 of 2020 (State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. O.P. Gupta)
6. W.P.(C ) 24026 of 2017 (Satya Narayan Dora Vs. State Bank of India & Another) decided on 8.12.2021.
In the case of Rushibhai Jagdish bhai Pathak, Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph-17 has held as follows:
"17. We are also inclined to grant interest to the appellants on the arrears at the rate of 7% per annum, which would be payable with effect from 1st September 2017. We have fixed the said date for grant of interest as the respondent-Corporation has accepted the interpretation of the Scheme rendered on 16th August 2016 in the Writ Petition preferred by Mukeshbhai Jaswantrai Joshi. Normally, and as a model employer, on accepting the said decision, the respondent- Corporation should have uniformly applied and granted the benefit to all its similarly situated employees affected by the order dated 28th October 2010. This would have avoided unnecessary litigation //164// before the courts, as was held in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava : (2015) 1 SCC
347."
In the case of State of Jharkhand, Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraphs-42 & 45 has held as follows:
"42. However, it is important to note that this observation was made by this Court while discussing the ambit of the doctrine of legitimate expectation under English law, as it stood then. As we have discussed earlier, there was a substantial conflation or overlap between the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel even under English law since the former was often invoked as being analogous to the latter. However, since then and since the judgment of this Court in National Buildings Construction Corpn. [National Buildings Construction Corpn. v. S. Raghunathan, (1998) 7 SCC 66 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1770] , the English law in relation to the doctrine of legitimate expectation has evolved. More specifically, it has actively tried to separate the two doctrines and to situate the doctrine of legitimate expectations on a broader footing.
XXX XXX XXX
45. In Union of India v. P.K. Choudhary [Union of India v. P.K. Choudhary, (2016) 4 SCC 236 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 640] , speaking through T.S. Thakur, C.J., the Court discussed the decision in Monnet Ispat [Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1] and noted its reliance on the judgment in Attorney General for New South Wales v. Quin [Attorney General for New South Wales v. Quin, (1990) 64 Aust LJR 327 : (1990) 170 CLR 1] . It then observed : (P.K. Choudhary case [Union of India v. P.K. Choudhary, (2016) 4 SCC 236 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 640] , SCC p. 267, para 56) "56. ... This Court went on to hold that if denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of a right that is guaranteed or is arbitrary, //165// discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse of power or in violation of principles of natural justice, the same can be questioned on the well-known grounds attracting Article 14 of the Constitution but a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles."
Thus, the Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be claimed as a right in itself, but can be used only when the denial of a legitimate expectation leads to the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution."
In the case of Dr. G. Sedasivan Naik, Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraphs-32 & 33 has held as follows:
"32. While we accept the settled position of law that the rule applicable in matters of determination of pension is that which exists at the time of retirement, we are unable to find any legal basis in the action of the respondent University of selectively allowing the benefit of Rule 25(a). The law, as recognised by this Court in Deokinandan Prasad [Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330 : AIR 1971 SC 1409] and Syed Yousuddin Ahmed [State of A.P. v. Syed Yousuddin Ahmed, (1997) 7 SCC 24 :
1997 SCC (L&S) 1587] unequivocally states that the pension payable to an employee on retirement shall be determined on the rules existing at the time of retirement. However, the law does not allow the employer to apply the rules differently in relation to persons who are similarly situated.
33. Therefore, we are of the view that if the respondent University sought to deny the benefit of Rule 25(a), in light of the proviso which was subsequently inserted thereby limiting the benefit of the Rule, it ought to have done so uniformly. The proviso could have been made applicable in relation to all employees who retired from service of the respondent University following the introduction of the proviso i.e. after 12-2-1985.
However, the action of the respondent University of selectively applying the proviso to Rule 25(a) in relation to the appellant, while not applying the said proviso in //166// relation to similarly situated persons, is arbitrary and therefore illegal. Such discrimination, which is not based on any reasonable classification, is violative of all canons of equality which are enshrined in the Constitution of India."
In the case of Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Another, Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph- 15 has held as follows:
"15. In the case of D.S. Nakara1, this Court had treated the pension retirees only, as a homogeneous class and all the pensioners governed by The 1972 Rules, were treated as a class, because payment of pension was a continuing obligation on the part of the State, till life long to the pensioners, unlike the beneficiaries of the Contributory Provident Fund. In the said case, it was never held that the pension retirees and the employees in service, constitute a homogeneous class. In the case of R.L Marwaha v. Union of India and others2, this Court has held that fixing of a date for grant of benefit, must have nexus with the object sought to be achieved. There cannot be any 2 1987(4) SCC 31 C.A.No.7230/2012 dispute on the proposition. Further, the case of Union of India and another v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal3, relates to fixation of cut-off date, for grant of liberalized Pension Scheme. Even in the case of Subrata Sen and others v. Union of India and others4, where a cut-off date was fixed for the purpose of applicability of revised pension scheme this Court has held that all retired employees constitute one homogeneous class and there cannot be cut-off date fixed to extend such benefits. All the above said cases which are referred to and relied on by the High Court are not relevant and cannot be pressed into service, to decide the issue which arises on the facts of this case."
In the case of State of Rajasthan & Others, Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph-28 has held as follows:
//167// "28. It is settled law that when financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee."
In the case of Satyanarayan Dora, this Court in Paragraphs-13 to 16 has held as follows:
"13. In D.S. Nakara (supra), at Paragraph-31, the apex Court observed that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right.
14. In Deokinandan (supra), the apex Court at paragraph-29 observed as follows:
"that the grant of pension does not depend upon any order. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to the service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to an officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules."
15. In Jitendra Kumar (supra), the apex Court at Paragraph-8 has observed as follows:
"It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of "property". This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India."
16. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, as discussed above, the right to receive pension does not depend on any order and flows by virtue of the Pension Rules. The pension accrued to the Petitioner under the statutory provisions of the Pension Rules, is in a nature of property, which cannot be taken away by the opposite parties without due process of law. As a consequence thereof, the pension, which has been accrued to the Petitioner under the Pension Rules, cannot be denied to //168// him without adopting due process of law. Since there is no adherence of any rule for denying the benefit admissible to the Petitioner under the Pension Rules, the same cannot be withheld or stopped or denied to the petitioner in any manner. Consequently, the opposite parties are obliged under law to pay pension to the Petitioner."
4.6. With regard to the submission of learned State Counsel that in order to be eligible to get the benefit of Rule-3 of the 1981 Rules, the employees concerned must come under Direct Payment System and the institutions must be fully aided, it is contended that applicability of Rule-3 of the 1981 Rules is defined differently for non-Government Colleges, High Schools, Senior Basic Schools, M.E. Schools and non- Govt. Private schools including Sanskrit Tolls and Jr. Basic Schools . While in the case of non-Government Colleges, High Schools, Sr. Basic Schools and M.E. Schools, the requirement is that the employees concerned must have received the Grant-in-Aid under the Direct Payment System, in the case of employees of Government Private Schools including Sanskrit Tools and Jr. Basic Schools, the Schools must be fully aided. Therefore, the stand taken by the learned State Counsel that in order to be eligible to get the benefit of Rule 3 of 1981 Rules, the employees must come //169// under the Direct Payment System and the school must be fully aided is not acceptable. With the word 'and' as incorporated in Rule-3, it separates the entitlement of the employees working in Non-Government Colleges, High Schools, Sr. Basic Schools and M.E. Schools to that of non- Government private schools including Sanskrit Tolls and Jr. Basic Schools. It is contended that because of the word "and" as indicated in Rule-3, the term "Direct Payment System" and "fully aided" cannot be read conjointly. 4.7. With regard to the interpretation of the word "and" so reflected in Rule-3 of 1981 Rules, it is contended that the word "Direct Payment System" and "Fully Aided" is to be read as separate and not conjointly as contended by the learned State Counsel.
4.8. With regard to the interpretation of the word "and" as reflected in Rule-3 of 1981 Rules, , learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of (i) Union of India Vs. Millenium Mumbai Broadcast Private Limited, 2006 SCC 2751 (ii) S. Krishna and Others Vs. State of Madras and Others 51 S.C 301 (iii) Calcutta Iron Merchant //170// Association and Another Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and Another 1997 (8) SCC 42.(iv) AIR 1968 SC 1450 (Iswar Singh Bindra & Others Vs. State of U.P.).
In the case of Union of India, Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph-14 has held as follows:
"14. In view of the aforementioned express stipulations contained in the agreement, it is required to construe clause 9 of the agreement at the outset independently. By reason of the said provision revocation of the licence both for breach of terms and conditions as also for default in payment of any consideration must precede 30 days' written notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing. How the said provision can be given effect to would depend on the construction of terms and conditions of the licence. By reason of clause 1.2 as contained in Schedule (C) appended thereto, the licensor had been conferred with a power to revoke the licence as also to encash and forfeit the bank guarantee without any notice. The expression "and" occurring in between the words "right to revoke the licence" and "encash and forfeit the bank guarantee" must be read as two separate clauses. The same cannot be read as conjunctive in view of the fact that it is admitted that the revocation of licence is not permissible without service of 30 days' notice. What was, therefore, permissible is that the licensor in terms of the said condition of licence may encash and forfeit the bank guarantee furnished by the licensee without giving any notice. The same would evidently mean that for the purpose of encashment and forfeiture of the bank guarantee, no separate notice is required to be given in the event any cause of action arises therefore."
//171// In the case of S. Krishnan and Others, Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph-10 & 49 has held as follows:-
"10. The Attorney-General, however, contended in the alternative that the constitutional validity of section 9 (2)
(a) and section 12 (1) of the new Act could be sustained under article 22 (4) (b) which has been held by a majority of the Judges in A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras (1) to be a distinct and independent provision authorising preventive detention for a period longer than three months in accordance with a law made by Parliament under sub-clauses (a) and
(b)of clause (7) of article 22. The Attorney-General claimed that the aforesaid provisions were such a law, none the less because Parliament may have intended to make a law within article 22 (4) (a) by providing for a review by an Advisory Board in all cases of preventive detention. On a question of vires, the intention of the Legislature is immaterial, and I agree that a provision for an Advisory Board is not a hall-mark which stamps a preventive detention law as one necessarily falling within sub-clause (a) of clause (4), so as to make its constitutional validity determinable exclu- sively with reference to the requirements of that sub- clause. The law could still be upheld if it fulfilled the conditions laid down in sub-clause (b) of clause (4). Mr. Nambiyar, however, submitted that the new Act did not fulfil those conditions, for it is not a law made under subclauses
(a) and (b) of clause (7). The word "and" should be under- stood in its ordinary conjunctive sense, and the new Act neither prescribes the circumstances and classes referred to in sub-clause (a)nor the (1) [1950] S.C.R. 88, (1) [1950] S.C.R.88.
maximum period of detention required to be prescribed under sub-clause (b) of clause (7). The contention is devoid of substance. The new Act can, in my opinion, be regarded as a law made substantially in accordance //172// with sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (7). According to the majority view in Gopalan's case, sub-clause (a) of clause (7)being an ena- bling provision, the word "and" should be understood in a disjunctive sense. The combined effect of sections 9(2)(a) and 12(1) is to provide, in a certain class of cases, name- ly, where detention orders were in force at the commencement of the new Act, that the persons concerned could be detained for a period longer than three months if an Advisory Board reports that there are sufficient grounds for detention within ten weeks from the commencement of the new Act, that is to say, without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board before the expiration of the three months from the commencement of the detention as provided in sub-clause (a) of clause (4). And, although 'the new Act does not in express terms prescribe in a separate provision any maximum period as such for which any person may in any class or classes of cases be detained, it fixes, by extending the duration of the old Act till the 1st April, 1952, an over- all time limit beyond which preventive detention under the Act cannot be continued. The general rule in regard to a temporary statute is that, in the absence of special provi- sion to the contrary, proceedings which are being taken against a person under it will ipsofacto terminate as soon as the statute expires (Craies on Statutes, 4th Edition, p.347). Preventive detention which would, but for the Act authorising it, be a continuing wrong, cannot, therefore, be continued beyond the expiry of the Act itself. The new Act thus in substance prescribes a maximum period of detention under it by providing that it shall cease to have effect on a specified date. It seems to me, therefore, that section 9(2)(a) and section 12(1) of the new Act substantially satisfy the requirements of sub clause (b) of clause (4) of article 22, and cannot be declared unconstitutional and void.
XXX XXX XXX
49. Brush aside for a moment the pettifogging of the law and forget for the nonce all the learned disputations about this and that, and "and" or "or ", or //173// "may" and "must ". Look past the mere verbiage of the words and penetrate deep into the heart and spirit of the Constitution. What sort of State are we intended to be ? Have we not here been given a way of life, the right to individual freedom, the. utmost the State can confer in that respect consistent with its own safety ? Is not the sanctity of the individual recognised and emphasised again and again ? Is not our Constitution in violent contrast to those of States where the State is everything and the individual but a slave or a serf to serve the will of those who for the time being wield almost absolute power ? I have no doubts on this score. I hold it therefore to be our duty, when there is ambiguity or doubt about the construction of any clause in this chapter on Fundamental Rights, to resolve it in favour of the freedoms which have been so solemnly stressed..Read the magnificent sweep of the preamble :-
"We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens: Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity."
In the case of Calcutta Iron Merchants' Association and Others, Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph-8 has held as follows:-
"8. We are of the view that the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is liable to be accepted. While it is not necessary for us to go into the correctness of the conclusion that the requirement of the provision, if treated as mandatory, is invalid, the limited question before us is whether it is permissible and possible - in the context of the language used - to read the words "and furnishes" as "or furnishes". We shall recast the provision by using the words "or furnishes" in Sub Clause (vd) of Section 5(2) to find out if it conveys any meaning. So recast, it reads as follows:-
//174// Section 5(2) : In this Act, the expression. taxable turnover means, in the case of a dealer who is liable to pay tax under Section 4 or under Sub-section (3) of Section 8, that part of his gross turn over during any period which remains after deducting therefrom -
(a) his turn over during that period in... (va) sales of goods specified in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956) on a prior sale whereof in West Bengal due tax is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner to have been paid...(vd) sales on iron and steel as specified in Clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, where he proves to the satisfaction of the Commission that such iron and steel were purchased by him in the same form in West Bengal, on or after the date with effect from which this sub clause comes into force, registered dealer or furnishes in the prescribed proforma a declaration containing prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtainable in the prescribed manner and duly signed by the registered dealer from whom such goods were purchased We agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that if the sub clause is read as aforesaid, it does not make sense and the sentence gets distorted from a grammatical point of view and, therefore, the latter part of the sub-section dealing with the mandatory requirement of production of declaration from the seller as stated therein, must be treated as not required to be fulfilled by the assessee for the purpose of the first part of Sub-clause (vd) of Section 5(2)(a). That would result in deleting the second limb namely, the underlined portion and leave the first limb intact thus permitting the affected parties to produce such proof as they can, in respect of the fact to be proved without being compelled to comply with the second limb of the sub-section.
In the case of Iswar Singh Bindra & Others, Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph-11 has held as follows:
//175// "11. Now if the, expression "substances" is to be taken to mean something other than "medicine" as has been held in our previous decision it becomes difficult to understand how the word "and" as used in the definition of drug in s. 3 (b) (i) between "medicines"
and "substances" could have been intended to have been used conjunctively. It would be much more appropriate in the context to read it disjunctively. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 3rd Ed. it is stated at page 135 that "and" has Generally a cumulative, sense, requiring, the fulfillment of all the conditions that it joins together, and herein it is the antithesis of "or". Sometimes, however, even in such a connection, it is, by force of a contents, read as "or". Similarly in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Ed., it has been accepted that "to carry out the intention of the legislature it is occasionally found necessary to read the conjunctions 'or' and 'and' one for the other". 4.9. Relying on the decisions so relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, it is contended that because of the word "and" so reflected in Paragraph-3, the word "Direct payment System" and "Fully Aided" is to be read disjunctively and not conjunctively. 4.10. Learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners accordingly contended that since Petitioners who are employees of recognised aided institutions and are in receipt of Grant-in-Aid directly paid by the Government either //176// through the Secretary or to the concerned employee, directly, they are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-3 of 1981 Rules. It is also contended that since similar benefit in terms of order passed by this Court in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida has already been extended, no discrimination can be made out to the present petitioners. It is also contended that since provisions of 1974 Rules has been made applicable to the employees of Block Grant institutions by this Court in its judgment dt.19.10.2023 in W.P.(C ) No.34453 of 2021 and batch, in view of the provisions contained under Rule-9 of the 1974 Rules, which is also applicable to the employees in receipt of Grant-in-Aid under G.I.A Order, 1994, the Petitioners are also eligible to get the benefit of Rule 9 of the 1974 Rules. The Petitioners and employees of aided educational institutions in receipt of Block Grant are also eligible and entitled to get similar pay and benefit as has been extended in favour of employees who are in receipt of Grant-in-Aid under G.I.A Order, 1994.
5. I have heard learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions and Mr. //177// R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate along with Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Parties.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the Petitioners herein are all employees of recognised aided educational institutions. It is found that after due approval of their services, Petitioners herein were extended with the benefit of Grant-in-Aid under G.I.A. Order, 2004 and subsequent GIA Orders so issued by the Government at different point of time.
6.1. As per the provisions contained under G.I.A Order, 1994 vis-a-vis G.I.A Order, 2004 and subsequent G.I.A Orders, Grant-in-Aid is being released in favour of the Petitioner's either directly or through the Secretary of the Governing body or Managing Committee as the case may be. But the fact remains that such grant is paid to the Petitioners after being released by the Government with due approval of their services. It is also found that the word "Direct Payment System" has neither been defined under the Orissa Education Act nor under the 1981 Rules or 1974 //178// Rules. The word "Direct Payment System" has also not been defined in any of the Grant-in-Aid Order including G.I.A Order, 1994. This Court after going through the provisions contained under G.I.A Order, 1994 vis-a-vis G.I.A Order, 2004 onwards finds that such Grant-in-Aid is being released in favour of the Petitioners either directly or through the Secretary of the Governing body or Managing Committee. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that Petitioners since are in receipt of Grant-in-Aid so paid by the Government, they are to be treated to have been paid under the Direct Payment System.
6.2. With regard to the stand taken by the learned Counsel for the State that applicability of Rule-3 will be made only in respect of those employees who are coming under the Direct Payment System and those institutions must be fully aided, this Court after going through the provisions contained under Rule-3 of the 1981 Rules finds that the word "and" separates the employees working in non-Govt. Colleges, High Schools, Sr. Basic Schools and M.E. Schools to that of employees working in non-Govt. Private Schools including Sanskrit Tolls and Jr. Basic Schools. In order to be eligible //179// to get the benefit of Rule-3 of 1981 Rules, the employees working in Recognised non-Government Colleges, High Schools, Sr. Basic Schools and M.E. Schools have to come under the Direct Payment System. Similarly, employees coming under the non-Government Private Schools including Sanskrit Tolls and Jr. Basic Schools are required to be employees of fully aided institutions. The stand taken by the learned Counsel for the State that the employee in receipt of block grant under GIA Order, 2004 and subsequent G.I.A Orders must be under the Direct Payment System and the school must be fully aided is not acceptable as the Rule is very much clear by separating one group of employees with that of the other group with the use of word "and".
6.3. In view of such analysis given hereinabove and the decisions so rendered by this Court in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida as well as the decisions in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul as well as Radharani Samal, this Court is of the view that employees working in non- Government Aided Educational institutions and in receipt of Grant-in-Aid under GIA Order 2004 onwards are also //180// eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits as provided under Rule 3 of 1981 Rules. The State being a model employer, placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastav, Mamata Mohanty and C. Lalitha, it is the view of this Court that State cannot discriminate one set of employees from the other set by taking a plea that the employees are not coming under the Direct Payment System. Since the word "Direct Payment System" has not been defined either in the Act or under the Rules, on such a technical plea, Petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits, in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V.S. Rudani and Ramesh Alhuwalia as cited supra.
7. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the rejection of the Petitioners' claim to get the benefit in the light of the order passed in the case of Sarat Chandra Parida is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly all those orders rejecting the claim of the Petitioners to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits under 1981 Rules is hereby quashed. While quashing all those orders in the //181// respective writ petitions, this Court held that the Petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits as has been extended in favour of Sarat Chandra Parida. This Court accordingly directs Opp. Parties to extend the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 3 of 1981 Rules in favour of the Petitioners within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.
8. All the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 12th of January, 2024/Sangita & Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-Jan-2024 10:30:45