Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 566 (ORI)

Akulananda Mallick v. State of Orissa

2015-09-30

G.R.PUROHIT, M.M.PRAHARAJ

body2015
ORDER : G.R. Purohit, J. The applicant who retired on 31.10.1995 as Headmaster of B.B. Bidyapitha Dohali under C.I. of School, Kendrapara has moved this Tribunal to direct the respondents to promote him to O.E.S. (I) Jr. And O.E.S. (Sr.) from 1989 to 1992 respectively from the dates his junior namely Gopal Chandra Nayak, Lingaraj Dalai and Sri Banchhanidhi Behera were promoted and fix up the salary in the promotional post, sanction the gratuity accordingly and fix up the pension and sanction the unspent E.L. and pay the entire arrear dues with 18% interest as the same has been held up since last 20 years. 2. The brief facts of the averments of the applicant is as follows: The applicant joined as O.E.S. Class-II (Sr. Branch) in 1984 and posted as Headmaster Bhanjanagar U.P. School in the district of Ganjam on 01.08.1984, Annexure-1 is the notification of the Govt. of Orissa Education and Youth Services Department which shows that in the appointment order the applicant is in Sl. No. 35 whereas, Gopal Chandra Naik, Lingaraj Dalai and Banchhanidhi Behera were in Sl. Nos. 36 to 38 respectively. While the applicant was working as D.I. of Schools, Soro in the district of Balasore, he was implicated in Balasore Vigilance Case No. 11/89 which correspondences to T.R. No. 43/94 of Bhubaneswar and T.R. No. 50/07 of Balasore. The said vigilance case ended in acquittal in the court of Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Balasore on 28.02.2008. On the basis of the charges of Vigilance Case, the applicant was put under suspension on 29.03.89 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and during pendency of the D.P. he was reinstated in service on 26.07.1990. During the departmental proceeding from time to time, five Inquiring Officers were appointed, but non of them submitted the enquiry report and due to the pendency of the D.P. and the Vigilance Case he was debarred from promotion. He had preferred O.A. No. 2182 (C)/1992 praying to quash the charges of the departmental proceeding with consequential service benefits, but the said case remained pending for a long time and it was finally disposed of vide order dtd. 27.01.10 on the basis of the additional affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary to Govt. S & M.E. Department by which it was informed that the Govt. has dropped the D.P. and has treated the period of suspension as duty. 27.01.10 on the basis of the additional affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary to Govt. S & M.E. Department by which it was informed that the Govt. has dropped the D.P. and has treated the period of suspension as duty. On the basis of that affidavit, the Tribunal passed order directing the respondents to release all service benefits to the applicant to which he would have been entitled, had the departmental proceeding not been initiated against him. He was given opportunity to approach the Tribunal by filing a representation and accordingly he had filed representation dtd. 15.3.10 vide Annexure-6 and subsequent reminder dtd. 26.06.10 and 31.7.2010 vide Annexure-7 & 8. But no action was taken by the respondents to give him benefit to which his juniors had got by virtue of their promotion. Hence the applicant has filed this O.A. 3. It is crystal clear from Annexure-1, the appointment letter issued by the Govt. of Orissa Education and Youth Services Department vide Notification dtd. 09.07.1984 that this applicant along with others were appointed in O.E.S. Class-II (School Branch), in which this applicant was at Sl. No. 35 whereas Gopal Chandra Naik, Lingaraj Dalai and Banchhanidhi Behera are in Sl. Nos. 36 to 38, respectively. It is also a fact that the applicant was acquitted in the Vigilance Case on dtd. 28.02.2008 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance Balasore. The Departmental proceeding has been withdrawn by the Govt. and the suspension period has been treated as duty. The applicant was debarred from promotion as Vigilance proceeding as well as Departmental proceeding were pending against him and his juniors were promoted to OES (I) Jr. And O.E.S. (I) Sr. from 1989 and 1992 respectively. The applicant has not yet been given final pension and vide Annexure-3 he has been allowed only provisional pension which was sanctioned only on 10.05.2001. In the meantime, the applicant is aged about 78 years. In the absence of counter filed by the applicant, the only inference can be drawn that the stand taken by the applicant is correct to the effect that he was debarred from promotion solely due to pendency of Vigilance Proceeding and the D.P. and has been acquitted from both the proceedings, but unfortunately by then he had already retired from Govt. service. 4. service. 4. In O.A. No. 2182 of 1992, at Annexure-5, the Division Bench of this Tribunal has observed as follows:- "However, since the departmental proceeding which was initiated against the applicant has already been dropped, all the service benefits to which the applicant would have been entitled to, if such proceeding would not have been initiated against him, be extended in his favour. If no such benefit is extended in favour of the applicant and he has any cause of action relating to his service benefits/financial benefits/promotional benefits including retiral benefits, the applicant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances in accordance with law. If so advised, before approaching any forum for redressal of his grievance, the applicant is also at liberty to approach the departmental authority for such benefits by way of filing a detailed representation." In view of this order passed by the Tribunal, representation, and two reminders given by the applicant, the respondents should have extended all service benefits which was given to his juniors and should have given him arrear pay, gratuity, leave encashment and should have fixed his pay and but final pension accordingly, but has not done so even through the applicant has retired since last 20 years. 5. Hence, the OA is allowed the State respondents are directed to give notional promotion to the applicant in O.E.S. (I) Jr. and O.E.S.•(I) Sr. from the date of his juniors Gopal Chandra Naik, Lingaraja Dalai and Banchhanidhi Behera were promoted and accordingly fix the salary in the promotional post and disburse the same. Also accordingly sanction the gratuity and fix up the final pension and to sanction the unspent E.L. Since the applicant is in fag end of his life, the respondents are directed to complete this exercise within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and disburse all the entitlements to the applicant failing which it will carry interest at the rate of Rs.9% per annum till payment is made and in that case, the State Govt. is at liberty to recover the interest component from the employee who will be found responsible for such delay. With this order, the O.A. is disposed of. M.M. Praharaj, J. : I agree. O.A. disposed of.