Orissa High Court
WP(C)/11622/2003 on 3 March, 2021
Author: B.R. Sarangi
Bench: B.R. Sarangi
W.P.(C) No. 11622 of 2003
05. 03.03.2021 The matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
(virtual/physical mode).
Heard Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. B. Prusty, learned Standing Counsel for
School and Mass Education Department.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking
following relief:-
"It is prayed therefore that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:-
a) admit the writ application
b) call for the records
c) issue rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties
as to why the circular under Annexure-8 shall
not be quashed and the salary to the petitioner
shall not be paid.
d) if the opposite parties do not show cause or
show insufficient cause issue a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in
quashing the circular under Annexure-8 and
direct the opposite parties to pay the salary to
the petitioner within a time to be stipulated by
this Hon'ble Court.
And pass such other order as may be deemed fit
and proper for the interest of justice."
In course of hearing, Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel
for the petitioner does not want press the prayer with regard
to quashing of the circular dated 28.10.2003 under
Annexure-8 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Sambalpur
Circle addressed to all the headmasters of aided high schools.
It is contended that since the post of the petitioner duly
approved by the authority vide Annexure-6 dated
13.08.1997, any action taken subsequent thereof cannot
sustain in the eye of law. It is further contended that
challenging the order in Annexure-8 the petitioner
approached this Court and while entertaining this writ
petition, this Court vide order dated 12.12.2003 passed
interim order to the extent that if the petitioner is still
continuing in service, he shall be paid his salary subject to
undertaking that he shall refund the same in the event he is
not found entitled to the same. It is further contended that
the petitioner is now continuing in service and receives salary
regularly, therefore the relief sought with regard to other part
of the prayer has already been granted by the authority.
Mr. B. Prusty, learned Standing Counsel for School
and Mass Education Department contended that the interim
order passed by this Court in conditional one that the
petitioner would furnish an undertaking that he will refund
the amount in the event he is loosing in the writ petition.
As it appears, the matter is of the year 2003, but till
date no counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite
parties. Therefore, the pleadings made in the writ petition is
admitted by the by the opposite parties.
In such view of the matter, the amount already paid
to the petitioner may not be recovered. The writ petition is
disposed of accordingly.
..................................
Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI, J) .