Orissa High Court
Manas Ranjan Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 1 September, 2023
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 12100 of 2022
Manas Ranjan Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA
Dr. P. Chuli, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
01.09.2023 Order No
08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. B. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opp. Parties and Dr. P. Chuli, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 3.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause why the Rule shall not be Absolute.
Upon return thereto hear the parties and/or their counsel and for insufficient cause this Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to pay the suspension allowance to the petitioner as admissible to him from the date of his suspension i.e.09.07.1999 to the date of superannuation // 2 // i.e.30.04.2020 and to disburse his retiral benefits within a stipulated time as deem fit and proper by this Court for the ends of justice.
Any other order/orders that may deem fit and proper be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case and for this act of your kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner while continuing as a Peon with due approval of his services to receive grant-in-aid under the direct payment scheme, he was placed under suspension w.e.f.09.07.1999 under Annexure-15. Subsequently, vide letter dtd.10.09.1999 under Annexure-16, Petitioner was intimated that he has been placed under suspension from 11.09.1999 on the ground of disobedience and gross negligence in his duty.
4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the Petitioner is an approved employee under the Direct Payment scheme, his service condition is governed by the provisions contained under Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institution) Rules, 1974 (in short Rules). It is contended that since the Petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f.11.09.1999 vide Anenxure-16, as provided under the 2nd Proviso to Sub rule 2 of Rule 21 of the aforesaid Rules, approval of such order of suspension is required to be obtained from the Director within a period of 30 days. It is contended that no such approval was ever obtained from the Director after placing the Petitioner under suspension w.e.f.11.09.1999.
Page 2 of 8// 3 // 4.2. It is also contended that since no approval as provided under the 2nd proviso to Rule 21(2) of the 1974 Rules was ever obtained from the Director of the College, the order of suspension so passed on 11.09.1999 lost its force after 30 days and accordingly it has to be held that the order of suspension goes and the Petitioner is deemed to be continuing in his service as an approved employee of the institution. It is also contended that in absence of any approval accorded by the Director as provided, the Petitioner was never allowed to continue in the College by withdrawing the order of suspension. While continuing as such he retired from his service and 30.04.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. Even after his retirement when the Petitioner was never released with the subsistence allowance and pensionary benefits, the present writ petition was filed inter alia with the prayer as indicated hereinabove.
4.3. It is contended that since the order of suspension so passed lost its force after 30 days due to non-accord of approval by the Director-Opp. Party No. 2, Petitioner as was not allowed to discharge his duty and kept under suspension on misconception till he attained the age of superannuation, Petitioner is entitled to get his salary in the shape of grant-in-aid for the period he remained under suspension till his retirement and pensionary benefit as due and admissible.
5. Dr. P. Chuli, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 3- College initially made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that subsequent to the order of suspension passed against the Petitioner under Annexure-16 the College though moved the Director seeking approval of the order of Page 3 of 8 // 4 // suspension on 14.11.2000 vide Annexure-F/3 to the counter, but no such approval was ever accorded by the Director and accordingly the College continued the Petitioner under suspension till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2020. Considering the stand taken by the Opp. Party No. 3 in his counter, this Court passed an order on 27.07.2023 to the following effect:-
"2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.3 be kept in record. Copy of the same is also served on learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Addl. Standing Court in Court today.
4. It is contended that even though the Petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 09.07.1999 and while continuing as such he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2020, but due to non-release of the grant-in-aid as due and admissible, the College could not release the subsistence allowance in his favour. However, in the meantime vide letter dated 25.07.2023 the College has moved Department of Higher Education seeking sanction of the amount in question and consequential release in favour of the Petitioner.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel is directed to obtain instruction as to whether after being placed under suspension w.e.f.11.09.1999, the College did not receive the grant-in-aid as due and admissible to the Petitioner till he attained the age of superannuation and whether the order of suspension has been approved by Opposite Party No.2 on being moved by Opposite Party No.3. Such instruction be provided to this Court on the next date.
6. As requested, list this matter on 18th of August, 2023.
7. A free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Panigrahi, learned ASC for compliance."
5.1. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 27.07.2023, an additional affidavit was filed by the Opp. Party No. 3. From the said additional affidavit, it is found that even though the Petitioner was Page 4 of 8 // 5 // placed under suspension w.e.f.11.09.1999, but the College submitted the requirement for payment of subsistence allowance in favour of the Petitioner only vide letter dtd.25.07.2023 under Annexure-1/3 series. Dr. Chuli accordingly contended that since the College has moved the Director seeking approval and no such approval was ever accorded and Petitioner remained under suspension till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2020, no fault lies with the College authorities. As the Petitioner could not be paid with his subsistence allowance, the College has moved the Director on 25.07.2023 submitting the requirement and for payment of the subsistence allowance in favour of the Petitioner.
6. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the materials available on record. It is contended that since in terms of the provisions contained under 2nd proviso to Rule 21(2) of the 1974 Rules, approval was never sought for after placing the Petitioner under suspension on 11.09.1999, the order of suspension so passed against the Petitioner lost its force after 30 days of its issue. After expiry of the period of 30 days, it is to be treated that the Petitioner continued in the College as an approved staff in his Capacity as a Peon till he attained the age of superannuation.
6.1. Mr. Mishra, learned AGA further contended that since no such approval was sought for after placing the Petitioner under suspension immediately, the request made by the College seeking such approval vide letter dtd.14.11.2000 under Annexure-A/3 series has no legal sanctity as by the time such a letter was issued, the order of suspension had already lost its force. It is also contended that Opp. Party No. 3 though kept the Petitioner under suspension Page 5 of 8 // 6 // on misconception after expiry of the statutory 30 days, but at no point of time intimated the said fact nor any fresh order of suspension was ever issued after issuance of the order under Annexure-16.
6.2. It is also contended that due to the illegal action of Opp. Party No. 3 in not following the mandates of the 1974 Rules, Petitioner was kept under suspension even though the order of suspension issued under Annexure-16 lost its force after expiry of 30 days. The College-Opp. Party No. 3 only on 25.07.2023 has submitted the requirement for release of subsistence allowance.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and taking into account the submissions made, this Court is of the view that since the Petitioner was an approved staff and in receipt of grant-in-aid under the Direct Payment Scheme, the College was required to obtain the approval of the Director after placing him under suspension w.e.f.11.09.1999 vide Annexure-16 within a period of 30 days in terms of the provisions contained under the 2nd proviso to Rule 21(2) of the 1974 Rules. Since no such approval was ever obtained from the Director, as per the considered view of this Court, the order of suspension lost its force after 30 days and the Petitioner is accordingly deemed to be continuing in his services as against the post of Peon till he attained the age of superannuation.
7.1. Therefore, while holding so, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of full salary for the period after expiry of 30 days from the date of suspension till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2020 in addition to the Page 6 of 8 // 7 // subsistence allowance. Petitioner is also eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits as provided under the Odisha Aided Educational Institutions' (Employees Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1981. This Court accordingly directs Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to release the grant-in-aid as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner for the period from 11.09.1999 till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2020. This Court further directs Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to sanction and release the pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible in his favour. Such an exercise shall be undertaken and completed by Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order.
7.2. However, in order to enable Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to pay the amount as directed, Opp. Party No. 3 is also directed to submit necessary proposal for sanction and release of grant-in-aid as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner for the period 11.09.1999 till the date of retirement on 30.04.2020. Opp. Party No. 3 is also directed to submit the required pension papers for sanction of pension and pensionary benefits in favour of the Petitioner before Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2. Opp. Party No. 3 is directed to comply the above direction within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before Opp. Party No. 3 within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of its receipt.
Further this Court taking into account the illegal action of Opp. Party No. 3 in keeping the Petitioner under suspension and not taking any step for release of subsistence allowance and salary all through till his retirement as well as the sufferings meted out to him Page 7 of 8 // 8 // imposes a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) on Opp. Party No.
3. The cost be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 05-Sep-2023 18:45:28 Page 8 of 8