Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 828 (ORI)

Charulata Senapati v. State of Orissa

2014-12-02

BISWANATH RATH

body2014
JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J - This is a writ petition filed by one Charulata Senapati as to why the order, vide Annexure-4 to the extent the findings of the Director that the petitioner is not entitled to get her salary during her termination period shall not be quashed and as to why the State opposite parties shall not be directed to pay the salary as per the grant-in-aid principle since the institution became eligible to get the same till today and with a direction for release of arrears within a stipulated period of time. 2. In making the above prayers, the petitioner submitted that by illegally terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 25.02.1986 the Secretary had illegally appointed the opposite party no.6 as Headmistress-in-Charge of the institution. It is further submitted that the petitioner challenged the said order of termination before the Inspector of Schools-opposite party no.4 and the said authority vide his order dated 26.06.1986 set aside the order of termination holding that the petitioner is deemed to be continuing in service till date. While the mater stood thus, pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 17.03.1993 in disposing the writ petition bearing O.J.C.No.2217 of 1990, a direction was issued to find out as to whether Smt. Charulata Senapati, the petitioner, is the Headmistress or Smt. Dipti Pratihari is the Headmistress. Following the direction of this Court, the Director of Secondary Education took up the issue. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the Director took up the issue, as directed and by order under Annexure-4 he held that the termination of the petitioner was bad and the appointment of Smt. Dipti Pratihari was ipso-facto invalid. Consequently declaring Smt. Pratihari’s continuance as Headmistress-in-Charge as invalid but to the ill luck of the petitioner the Director, Higher Education disentitled the petitioner from getting her salary for the entire period. It is, challenging this part of the Direction of the Director, Higher Education, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming the relief as indicated hereinabove. 3. Consequently declaring Smt. Pratihari’s continuance as Headmistress-in-Charge as invalid but to the ill luck of the petitioner the Director, Higher Education disentitled the petitioner from getting her salary for the entire period. It is, challenging this part of the Direction of the Director, Higher Education, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming the relief as indicated hereinabove. 3. Per contra, opposite party nos.1 to 4 by filing a counter affidavit while justifying the decision of the Director submitted that it is on the request of the Director, directing the Inspector of Schools to adjust opposite party no.6 against vacancy caused by concerned trained graduate teacher and remaining in-charge of the Headmistress till the post of a regular Headmistress or until further orders from the Directorate. Consequently basing on a resolution of the Managing Committee, opposite party no.6 was accommodated. In paragraph-5, the State opposite parties specifically averred that in the event it is decided by this Court that the petitioner is entitled to her salary during the termination period, the opposite party no.6 will obviously have no claim for that period or else, it will lead to a anomalous situation leading to double payment. 4. Similarly, opposite party no.6 on her appearance filed a detailed counter stating that she was illegally terminated and made an attempt to establish that the order of the Director wrong. 5. Heard parties. During consideration of the case of the parties involved, I had the occasion to peruse the order vide Annexure-4, following the direction of this Court in O.J.C.No.2217 of 1990, and I find from Annexure-4, the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar framed the following three questions: “(a) Whether Smt. Charubala Senapati was appointed as the Headmistress; (b) Whether the termination of services of Smt.Charubala Senapati is legal and valid; (c) Whether Smt. Dipty Pratihari was appointed as Headmistress and if so whether it is legal and valid: 6. Further perusal of Annexure-4, I find the Director while dealing with question no.2 as referred to hereinabove, in paragraph-11 came to hold as follows: “In the above said premises, I hold the said meeting to be legally invalid. The meeting being ipso-facto invalid, the decision taken in the meeting of the Managing Committee are necessarily invalid. Therefore, the termination of the services of Smt Charubala Senapati cannot be held to be valid in the eyes of law. The meeting being ipso-facto invalid, the decision taken in the meeting of the Managing Committee are necessarily invalid. Therefore, the termination of the services of Smt Charubala Senapati cannot be held to be valid in the eyes of law. The order of termination therefore cannot said to be valid.” Similarly, while deciding on the question no.3 in paragraph 15 held as follows: “Besides, since I have held that all the meetings held subsequent to 24.9.85 to be legally invalid the resolution of Managing Committee appointing Smt. Pratihary is ipso-facto invalid and therefore her appointment as an Asst. Teacher and Headmistress-in-charge, as the case may be, cannot be taken to be valid.” 6. From the above findings of the Director, it is amply clear that the Director has very categorically held the termination of the petitioner as bad and at the same time also held that the appointment of opposite party no.6 is invalid consequently her continuance as Headmistress-in-Charge also invalid. But in concluding his decision, the Director in providing appropriate relief to the petition has held as follows: “In the aforesaid premises, I declare the termination of services of Smt. Senapati to be illegal and unjustified. Accordingly, I quash the same and direct the Managing Committee of B.K. Girls’ High School, Bagalgarh to take her back to the School as an Asst. Teacher restoring her seniority. She would not be entitled to any salary from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement since she had not performed her duties during the said period. For the said period she would be allowed leave due and admissible. Her pay as an Assistant Teacher on the date of reinstatement be re-fixed allowing her admissible incremental benefits from the date of joining i.e. 09.09.82. She should, however, be not entitled to the post of Headmistress. For the said period she would be allowed leave due and admissible. Her pay as an Assistant Teacher on the date of reinstatement be re-fixed allowing her admissible incremental benefits from the date of joining i.e. 09.09.82. She should, however, be not entitled to the post of Headmistress. It should be filled up complying with the requirements of Rule 8(3) of the 1974 Rule.” 7.Since the Director has come to hold that termination of the services of the petitioner cannot be held valid in the eye of law and at the same time also held that the appointment of opposite party no.6 as an Assistant Teacher as well as Headmistress-in-Charge cannot be held to be valid and further the said order being not challenged by any concerned in any higher forum, I am of the view that the petitioner has been unlawfully prevented to discharge her duty and she cannot be found to be in fault in not attending her duties. On the other hand she has been unlawfully prevented from discharging her duties. Therefore, while disapproving the direction of the Director in respect of the petitioner depriving her to get salary from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, I direct the Managing Committee while treating the petitioner to be continuing in service uninterruptedly during the entire period i.e. from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement and to provide her all consequential relief treating her to be a regular employee including her revisions in the scale of pay, if any, in the meanwhile. It is made clear that the petitioner will also be entitled to all increments in her pay in the meanwhile. Considering the deliberate harassment to the petitioner, I also direct the Managing Committee to release the back wages as directed hereinabove along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of entitlement till the date of payment. The entire amount, as directed hereinabove, be calculated and released within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. The writ petition succeeds to the above extent. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Petition succeeds.