Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1332 (ORI)

Bhabagrahi Maharana v. State of Orissa

2017-11-21

D.P.CHOUDHURY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Dr. D.P.Choudhury, J. Since the petitioners, in all these writ petitions, have assailed the inaction of the opposite parties in not releasing their arrear salary, the same are being taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioners is as follows: (A) The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13158 of 2013 is that he was appointed as 4th Peon in Ramachandra Bidyapitha, Garasang, in the district of Balasore on 29.08.1987 and joined in said post on 02.09.1987 while the strength of that school was more than 100 and said school became eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 01.06.1994. After grant-in-aid was made applicable, the school sent the recommendation to the Inspector of Schools for approval of petitioner’s post against 4th Peon but the Inspector of Schools did not approve the petitioner’s post as 4th Peon for which he approached this Court vide O.J.C. No.2179 of 1997 and pursuant to the order dated 6.3.1997, the Inspector of Schools, Balasore vide order dated 02.08.1997 approved the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1994 and released his salary with effect from 01.07.1997 to July, 1999. Thereafter, the salary of the petitioner has been stopped on the ground of paucity of funds. (B) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13959 of 2013 was appointed as 4th Peon in Gopinath Uchha Bidyapitha, Tuta Sampei, in the district of Balasore on 27.06.1991 and joined the said post on 3.7.1991 while the strength of that school was more than 100 and said school became eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 01.06.1994. After grant-in-aid was made applicable, the school sent the recommendation to the Inspector of Schools for approval of petitioner’s post against 4th Peon but the Inspector of Schools did not approve the petitioner’s post as 4th Peon for which he approached this Court vide O.J.C. No.7296 of 1997 and pursuant to the order dated 26.10.1998, the Inspector of Schools, Balasore vide order dated 02.07.1999 approved the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1994 and released the salary of the petitioner with effect from 01.09.1998 to July, 1999. Thereafter, the salary of the petitioner has been stopped on the ground of paucity of funds. Thereafter, the salary of the petitioner has been stopped on the ground of paucity of funds. (C) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13960 of 2013 was appointed as 4th Peon in Gram Panchayat High School, Naikudi, in the district of Balasore on 18.11.1991 and joined the said post on 25.11.1991 while the strength of that school was more than 100 and said school became eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 01.06.1994. After grant-in-aid was made applicable, the school sent the recommendation to the Inspector of Schools for approval of petitioner’s post against 4th Peon but the Inspector of Schools did not approve the petitioner’s post as 4th Peon for which he approached this Court vide O.J.C. No.10142 of 1996 and pursuant to the order dated 20.10.1998, the Inspector of Schools, Balasore vide order dated 08.02.1999 approved the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1994 and released the salary of the petitioner with effect from 01.9.1998 to July, 1999. Thereafter, the salary of the petitioner has been stopped on the ground of paucity of funds. (D) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13961 of 2013 was appointed as 4th Peon in Panchanana High School, Badakhuri, in the district of Balasore on 16.9.1991 and joined the said post on 24.09.1991 while the strength of that school was more than 100 and said school became eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 01.06.1994. After grant-in-aid was made applicable, the school sent the recommendation to the Inspector of Schools for approval of petitioner’s post against 4th Peon but the Inspector of Schools did not approve the petitioner’s post as 4th Peon for which he approached this Court vide O.J.C. No.10147 of 1996 and pursuant to the order dated 25.04.1997, the Inspector of Schools, Balasore vide order dated 25.10.1997 approved the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1994 and released the salary of the petitioner with effect from 01.9.1998 to July, 1999. Thereafter, the salary of the petitioner has been stopped on the ground of paucity of funds. (E) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15209 of 2013 was appointed as 4th Peon in Subarna Debi High School, Kanchpada, in the district of Balasore on 15.04.1989 while the strength of that school was more than 100 and said school became eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 01.06.1994. (E) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15209 of 2013 was appointed as 4th Peon in Subarna Debi High School, Kanchpada, in the district of Balasore on 15.04.1989 while the strength of that school was more than 100 and said school became eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 01.06.1994. After grant-in-aid was made applicable, the school sent the recommendation to the Inspector of Schools for approval of petitioner’s post against 4th Peon but the Inspector of Schools did not approve the petitioner’s post as 4th Peon for which he approached this Court vide O.J.C. No.12046 of 1996 and pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the post of the petitioner was approved by the Inspector of Schools, with effect from 01.06.1994 and released the salary of the petitioner with effect from 26.09.1998. But from the impugned letter dated 31.5.2013, it appears that the arrear salary received by him has been ordered to be recovered, which is illegal. (F) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13610 of 2013 was appointed as 4th Peon in Patarani High School, Tahalia, in the district of Balasore on 13.12.1997 while the strength of that school was more than 100 and said school became eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 01.06.1994. After grant-in-aid was made applicable, the school sent the recommendation to the Inspector of Schools for approval of petitioner’s post against 4th Peon but the Inspector of Schools did not approve the petitioner’s post as 4th Peon for which he approached this Court vide O.J.C. No.4116 of 1996 and pursuant to the order dated 15.05.1996, the post of the petitioner was approved with effect from 01.06.1994 and his salary was released from 01.03.1999. But from the impugned letter dated 31.5.2013, it appears that the arrear salary received by him has been ordered to be recovered, which is illegal. (G) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14471 of 2013 was appointed as 4th Peon in Kuruda High School, Kuruda, in the district of Balasore on 26.08.1986 and joined in the said post on the same day while the strength of that school was more than 100 and said school became eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 01.06.1994. (G) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14471 of 2013 was appointed as 4th Peon in Kuruda High School, Kuruda, in the district of Balasore on 26.08.1986 and joined in the said post on the same day while the strength of that school was more than 100 and said school became eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 01.06.1994. After grant-in-aid was made applicable, the school sent the recommendation to the Inspector of Schools for approval of petitioner’s post against 4th Peon but the Inspector of Schools did not approve the petitioner’s post as 4th Peon for which he approached this Court vide O.J.C. No.2794 of 1997 and pursuant to the order of this Court passed in the said writ petition, the Inspector of Schools, Balasore vide order dated 06.10.1997 approved the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1994 and released the salary of the petitioner with effect from 01.9.1998 to July, 1999. Thereafter, the salary of the petitioner has been stopped on the ground of paucity of funds. (H) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23417 of 2013 was appointed as 4th Peon in Shradhamani Udayanarayan High School, Mukhura, in the district of Balasore on 02.10.1991 while the strength of that school was more than 100 and said school became eligible to receive grant-in-aid with effect from 01.06.1994. After grant-in-aid was made applicable, the school sent the recommendation to the Inspector of Schools for approval of petitioner’s post against 4th Peon but the Inspector of Schools did not approve the petitioner’s post as 4th Peon for which he approached this Court vide O.J.C. No.10143 of 1996 and pursuant to the order dated 20.10.1998, the Inspector of Schools, Balasore approved the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.06.1994 and released the salary of the petitioner from October, 1998. When the petitioner was performing his duty and receiving salary, pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the opposite party no.3 again approved the service of the petitioner with effect from November, 2003. Though the petitioner was serving regularly since 1991, he was receiving regular salary from November, 2009 and arrear salary from June, 2008 but the opposite party no.3 has not released the arrear salary from 01.06.1994 to May, 2008. Though the petitioner was serving regularly since 1991, he was receiving regular salary from November, 2009 and arrear salary from June, 2008 but the opposite party no.3 has not released the arrear salary from 01.06.1994 to May, 2008. (I) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7422 of 2015 was appointed as 4th Peon in Jagulei Bidyaniketan, Belarapa in the district of Kendrapara on 18.03.1989 and joined in the said post on 18.03.1989. As the post of the petitioner was not approved, he approached this Court vide O.J.C. No.1753 of 1990 and pursuant to the order dated 20.08.1990 of this Court, the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa issued a letter to the Inspector of Schools on 22.11.1990 to approve the appointment of the petitioner and make payment of salary. When the order of the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa was not carried out, on the approach of the petitioner, the Director, Secondary Education again directed the Inspector of Schools to approve the post of the petitioner within a period of fifteen days in compliance of the order passed by this Court in OJC No.1753 of 1990 and ultimately pursuant to the direction dated 12.08.2008 of the State Government, the Inspector of Schools approved the post of the petitioner on 19.03.2013. The petitioner has only received the salary from March, 2013 but has not received the arrear salary with effect from June, 1994 to February, 2013. 3. In all the above writ petitions, it appears that the State Government abruptly issued an order on 31.05.2013 to all these writ petitioners except the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7422 of 2015 that due to the objection raised by the audit, the payment already made to the petitioners or ordered to be paid were to be recovered without any reason mentioned by the audit. Hence, the writ petitions are filed challenging the said letter dated 31.05.2013 in W.P.(C) Nos.13158, 13959, 13960, 13961, 15209, 13610, 23417 and 14471 of 2013 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7422 of 2015 has prayed for a direction to release the arrear salary for the period from June, 1994 to February, 2013. 4. Hence, the writ petitions are filed challenging the said letter dated 31.05.2013 in W.P.(C) Nos.13158, 13959, 13960, 13961, 15209, 13610, 23417 and 14471 of 2013 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7422 of 2015 has prayed for a direction to release the arrear salary for the period from June, 1994 to February, 2013. 4. SUBMISSIONS Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were originally appointed as 4th Peon in their respective schools and due to non-payment of salary, they have approached this Court and by virtue of the order passed by this Court in their respective writ petitions, as described above, were allowed to draw the salary from 01.06.1994 being posted as 4th Peon. 5. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that in spite of the order of this Court and in spite of receiving the arrear salary, the same was not paid from July, 1999 to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.13158, 13959, 13960, 13961 and 14471 of 2013 and the salary of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15209 of 2013 has been released from 26.09.1998, the salary of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13610 of 2013 has been released from 1.3.1999, the salary of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23417 of 2013 has been released from October, 1998 and the salary of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7422 of 2015 has been released from March, 2013 onwards. In spite of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and subsequent arrangement made to comply the order, the opposite parties have stopped the payment of arrear salary of the petitioners which is completely against the norms of the State. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically made order to promote the senior most peon to the post of Daftary and against that vacancy, the 4th peon may be adjusted. It is further contended that in spite of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the opposite parties have paid the salary to some of the petitioners from 01.06.1994 till such time in 1999 and further not paid the salary to any of the petitioners due to audit objection. According to them, when this Court has already passed order to pay salary of 4th Peon and Hon’ble Supreme Court modified the order by introducing the concept of Daftary, there is no reason to stop payment of the arrear salary of the petitioners. According to them, when this Court has already passed order to pay salary of 4th Peon and Hon’ble Supreme Court modified the order by introducing the concept of Daftary, there is no reason to stop payment of the arrear salary of the petitioners. So, they pray to direct the opposite parties to make payment of the arrear salary of the petitioners within a stipulated period and the order dated 31.05.2013 to refund the arrear salary already paid be quashed. 7. It is further submitted that some of the petitioners have paid the arrear salary but by virtue of the impugned letter dated 13.05.2013, they have been directed to pay back the arrear salary already received, which is not correct and legal. So, in W.P.(C) Nos.13158, 13959, 13960, 13961, 15209, 13610, 14471 and 23417 of 2013, it has been prayed to quash the said letter dated 31.05.2013. 8. Mr.Biswal, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department filed a memo stating therein that he would adopt the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.13613 of 2013 in all these cases and relying upon the said counter affidavit, he submitted that the petitioners have suppressed material facts because vide Government Order dated 19.04.2000, the concept of 4th Peon was never prevalent. According to Government Order, if the management has made any appointment beyond the yard-stick provided by the Government, the management has got responsibility to bear the financial liability for payment of such salary to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for drawal of salary as 4th Peon. He further submitted that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been followed by the State Government. Since after the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Government complied the same by issuing Office Order on 7.5.2008, the petitioners are not entitled for any arrear salary. Moreover, he submitted that objection of the audit has not been dealt with by this Court in the earlier occasions. But, as it appears that the auditor has raised objection but the money being paid in excess, was allowed by the audit to get refund of the same. So, he submitted that there is no impediment or illegality in issuing the impugned order in 2013 for recovery of arrear salary paid from the petitioners. 9. But, as it appears that the auditor has raised objection but the money being paid in excess, was allowed by the audit to get refund of the same. So, he submitted that there is no impediment or illegality in issuing the impugned order in 2013 for recovery of arrear salary paid from the petitioners. 9. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: (I) Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive the arrear salary, who are working as 4th Peon; (II) Whether the Government Order dated 06.10.2013 is liable to be quashed? 10. DISCUSSIONS POINT NO.(I) From the pleadings of both parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as 4th peon by the Managing Committee of their respective schools and subsequently their posts have been approved by the concerned Inspector of Schools after the Court intervenes in their respective writ petitions, as stated above. It is also admitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while deciding similar nature of cases, have been pleased to modify the order passed by this Court by observing that the post of Daftary should be filled up by promoting the senior most peon and the 4th peon be adjusted against that vacancy. 11. It is necessary to quote the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.08.2003 passed in the case of State of Orissa –V-Rajednra Kumar Das; (2003) 10 SCC 411 and for better reference, paragraphs-12 and 13 of said order is reproduced below: “12. We, therefore, while allowing these appeals direct that the management of the concerned institution shall move the concerned authorities for approval to the promotional appointment of a class IV employee, as "Daftary". Simultaneously, it can also recommend for appointment to the class IV post, in case approval is accorded to the recommendation for appointment of "Daftary" on promotion. The decision on both motions shall be taken within three months from the date of submission of the recommendation in accordance with law keeping in view the operative yardsticks in force at the time of appointments were made. Even if there has been refusal earlier, the matter shall be reconsidered in the light of what has been stated above. 13. Before we part with this case we must indicate that undisputedly there were several decision of the Division Bench rendered at earlier points of time, taking a view contrary to the one taken in the impugned judgments. Even if there has been refusal earlier, the matter shall be reconsidered in the light of what has been stated above. 13. Before we part with this case we must indicate that undisputedly there were several decision of the Division Bench rendered at earlier points of time, taking a view contrary to the one taken in the impugned judgments. Learned counsel for the respondents (writ petitioners) fairly accepted that it is so. In fact, copy of one such decision dated 3.12.1998 in O.J.C. 14004/97 was placed on record. The decisions do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judges hearing the writ petitions. This speaks volumes about the seriousness exhibited by learned counsel appearing for the parties, particularly the State Government, before the High Court.” With regard to the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears that in the instant case, the State Government passed order on 06.10.2003 directing all the then Inspector of Schools to comply the order. Such order directs all the Inspector of Schools to verify the records and role strength of the concerned school and submit proposal to the Director, Secondary Education for further scrutiny and for obtaining necessary concurrence of the Finance Department. 12. It appears from all the writ petitions that the decision was taken to comply the order and accordingly the State Government issued Office Order dated 07.05.2008, which is reflected in the letter dated 30.5.2008 annexed to the writ petitions to the effect that these petitioners be adjusted as 4th Peon prospectively. Now, the main question that arises for consideration is that the order dated 30.05.2008 for complying the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court prospectively right from the date of issue or as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This Court, in a similar nature of case, i.e, Narayan Das –V-State of Orissa and others (W.P.(C) No.19969 of 2015, interpreting the Office Order dated 07.05.2008 and discussing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has observed in the following manner: 23. .........It is revealed from the material available on record that on 06.10.2003, the State Government asked the Director of Secondary Education and all the Inspector of Schools to implement the order and accordingly the recommendation of the school of the petitioner was sent vide Annexure-7. .........It is revealed from the material available on record that on 06.10.2003, the State Government asked the Director of Secondary Education and all the Inspector of Schools to implement the order and accordingly the recommendation of the school of the petitioner was sent vide Annexure-7. In annexure-7, it has been specifically stated that the school has got capacity of more than 100 students always and the petitioner has been working as 4th Peon since 02.05.1988. Instead of complying the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court within the time specified by it, the Government issued Office Order dated 07.05.2008, which is reproduced below: “GOERNMENT OF ORISSA DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL & MASS EDUCATION No.9087/SME. Dt.7.5.08 IX-SME (HC)-19/06(Pt-1) OFFICE ORDER Government of Orissa, Education and Youth Service Deptt. Issued Circular No.28365 EYS dt.8.7.81 fixing standard staff for the non-Government Secondary Schools. So far as Peons are concerned, three Peons with following designations have been provided in the above circular: (i) Office Peon -1 (ii) Science Attendant – 1 (iii) Night Watcher-cum-Sweeper – 1 It has been further provided that where the roll strength of the school exceeds 100, one post of Daftary is admissible. Subsequently by another circular No.15500-SVIIEP-50/91-E, dtd. 27th March, 1992 the position was further clarified that the roll strength of 10 Class High School in 500 (five hundred) or more, one post of Daftary is admissible. As regards the post of Daftary in 3-Class, 5-Class & 7-Class High School the Circular is silent. While disposing of the Civil Appeal No.6844/2003, State of Orissa Vrs. Rajendra Kumar Das and another and batch of 4 other C.As, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in their judgment dt. 29.8.03 have observed as follows: “If a school was entitled to have a “Daftary” certainly the appointment was to be made by promoting one of the three persons, i.e, Office Peon. Science Attendant and Night Watcher-cum-Sweeper, there being no other Class-IV post in the institution. It is for the Managing Committee of the institution to decide who is to be promoted and thereafter seek approval of the concerned authorities. We, therefore, while allowing these appeals direct that the management of the concerned institution shall move the concerned authorities for approval to the promotion appointment of a Class-IV employee as “Daftary”. Simultaneously, it can also recommend for appointment to the Class-IV post, in case approval is accorded to the recommendation for appointment of “Daftary” on promotion. We, therefore, while allowing these appeals direct that the management of the concerned institution shall move the concerned authorities for approval to the promotion appointment of a Class-IV employee as “Daftary”. Simultaneously, it can also recommend for appointment to the Class-IV post, in case approval is accorded to the recommendation for appointment of “Daftary” on promotion. The decision on both motions shall be taken within three months from the date of submission of the recommendation in accordance with law keeping in view of the operative yard-sticks in force at the time of appointments were made. Even if there has been refusal earlier, the matter shall be reconsidered in the light of what has been stated above.” In accordance with the above observations and directions contained in the judgment dated 29.08.03, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the proposal of the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa vis-a-vis detail information furnished by the Inspector of Schools concerned were examined and found that the Managing Committee of the concerned High Schools under respective Education Circle had appointed the 4th Peon mentioned against each High school as per list enclosed. At that point of time, the student strength of the school was above 100. As such, one post of “Daftary” in the said school as per yardstick for adjustment of 4th Peon against the consequential vacancy in accordance with principle laid down in the judgment dt. 29.8.03 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. That after careful consideration, Government have been pleased to allow the Management to give promotion to one of the existing Class-IV employees to the post of Daftary, taking into consideration the merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority and to adjust the so called 4th Peon as mentioned in the list enclosed in the consequential vacancy of Class-IV post in the said school. Xxxx xx xx The adjustment shall be prospective in nature and the aforesaid so called 4th Peon so adjusted is entitled for salaries (grant-in-aid) only after he/she resumes duty in the said post. The post of Daftary in the said High School shall be abolished automatically consequent upon retirement/ resignation/death etc. Of the incumbent. The Inspector of Schools concerned shall take immediate steps to issue necessary office order in this regard within a week positively from the date of receipt of this order and submit compliance to Govt. forthwith. The post of Daftary in the said High School shall be abolished automatically consequent upon retirement/ resignation/death etc. Of the incumbent. The Inspector of Schools concerned shall take immediate steps to issue necessary office order in this regard within a week positively from the date of receipt of this order and submit compliance to Govt. forthwith. This disposes of the claims of petitioners pursuant to the orders/judgments of the Hon’ble High Court/Hon’ble Supreme court, if any, filed by the so called 4th Peons. All concerned be intimated accordingly. This has been concurred in by Finance Deptt. In their UOR No.13/SS-1 dtd.14.1.08. Sd/-U.P.Singh Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt Xxxx xx xx” The aforesaid Office Order issued by the State Government clearly states that the same has been issued in pursuance of the order dated 29.08.2003 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa –V-Rajendra Kumar Das reported in (2003) 10 SCC 411 . It is clearly mentioned in the Office Order dated 07.05.2008 that in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Government allowed to give promotion to one of the existing Class-IV employees to the post of Daftary and to adjust the so called 4th Peon in the list of schools including the school of the petitioner as per the pleadings of the parties. There again it is mentioned that the adjustment shall be prospective in nature and the 4th Peon adjusted would be entitled only after he resumes duty in the said post. When there is specific direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that decision on both the motions should be taken within three months from the date of recommendation and in the particular case, the recommendation has already been made by the concerned school on 05.11.2003 in pursuance of the letter of the State Government, the direction under the Office Order dated 07.05.2008. Instead of complying the order within the time specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was directed that adjustment shall be prospective in nature, i.e, from the date of issuance of Office Order dated 07.05.2008 can be said to be contemptuous. Instead of complying the order within the time specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was directed that adjustment shall be prospective in nature, i.e, from the date of issuance of Office Order dated 07.05.2008 can be said to be contemptuous. Thus, the Office Order dated 07.05.2008 cannot be allowed to contravene the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to make the list so approved prospective from 07.05.2008 but the same should be made applicable retrospectively, i.e, three months from the date of recommendation as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. When the State Government has sat over the matter for five years instead of complying the order of the Hon’ble Supreme court, undoubtedly such order of the State Government affect the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit as accrued under the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24. It will not be out of place to mention that the petitioner has been already appointed as Peon with due approval of the State Government. It is only submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department that the approval of the erstwhile Inspector of Schools to the appointment of the petitioner as 4th Peon is not operative does not hold good as the said order has been passed in pursuance of the order of this Court passed in OJC No.5108 of 1996. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have also directed for introduction of Daftary system and consequently the concept of appointment of 4th Peon in the manner as observed above. So, the petitioner is working as 4th Peon from 02.05.1988 and continuing as such. When the Hon’ble Supreme Court by modifying the order of this Court directed for fresh recommendation and the same is also complied in the manner as stated above, there is no logic to deny his continuance in the post of 4th Peon for the period from October 2002 to March, 2009. The point is answered accordingly. When the Hon’ble Supreme Court by modifying the order of this Court directed for fresh recommendation and the same is also complied in the manner as stated above, there is no logic to deny his continuance in the post of 4th Peon for the period from October 2002 to March, 2009. The point is answered accordingly. In the judgment passed in the above case, this Court has specifically observed that as per direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read with the direction of this Court, the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be lost sight of even if the Office Order dated 07.05.2008 is made prospective inasmuch as the said Office Order cannot be allowed to contravene the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to comply same within three months from the date of recommendation. Similarly situated employees should get the benefit of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. The Government Order dated 07.05.2008 cannot be considered as prospective but should be retrospective by paving way of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court to be complied as the same are binding on both parties. On the other hand, the petitioners are entitled to continuance to the post of 4th Peon from the respective period they are approved as such by the order of this Court passed in their respective earlier writ petitions and by the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Point No.(I) is answered accordingly. 14. POINT No.(II) The Office Order dated 31.05.2013 impugned in the writ petitions is placed below for reference: “OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BALASORE OFFICE ORDER No.10239 Dt.31.05.13 Pursuant to letter No.5530 dt.01.03.2013 of the Govt. in the Deptt. Of School and Mass Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the earlier orders of approval from retrospective effect and the consequential benefits thereof including sanction of salaries, increments pay fixation etc. as mentioned against each in favour of the following 13 nos. of peons are hereby withdrawn. As such the salaries not due and paid to them are to be recovered from the person concerned as per fresh calculation granting the salaries with prospective effect from the date of their adjustment as peons against the vacant posts, caused due to filling up of the posts of daftary on promotion. SL. No. Name of the employees (peons) Name of the school where serving. SL. No. Name of the employees (peons) Name of the school where serving. Order No. & Date 01 02 03 04 01. K.K. Das, K. Panda, M. Hembrum, T.C. Sahu, T. Sahu, A.K. Patra and A.C. Panigrahi In favour of the 8 peons Order No.1367 Dt.09.06.2009 Order No.1925 Dt.24.02.2010 02. Basant Kumar Giri R.K.H.S., Baharda Order No.3188 Dt.08.05.2009 03. Kamala Kanta Kar P.H.H.S, Tahalia Order No.3192 Dt.08.05.2009 04. Saroj Kumar Mohapatra M.B.P. Mahatipur Order No.3196 Dt.08.05.2009 05. Jayanta Kumar Rana S.U.N.H.S, Mukhura Order No.3200 Dt.08.05.2009 06. Sripati Charan Roul U.N.H.S., Hasimpur Order No.3205 Dt.08.05.2009 07. Bhabgrahi Moharana R.C.U.B.P., Garsang Order No.3255 Dt.08.05.2009 08. Chandra Sekhar Nayak Khurda H.S., Khurda Order No.4068 Dt.02.06.2009 09. Siba Prasad Ghadei P.H.S. Badakhuri Order No.4071 Dt.02.06.2009 10. Kasinath Panda G.N.U.B.P.,Tutasam pei Order No.4244 Dt.04.06.2009 11. Tirtha Charan Sahu B.N.H.S., Rasalpur Order No.4254 Dt.04.06.2009 12. Trilochan Sahu S.N.B.P., Nabara Order No.4259 Dt.04.06.2009 13. Srikant Sahoo G.P.H.S., Naikudi Order No.4264 Dt.04.06.2009 14. Mangal Hembram Simanta H.S., Chudamanipur Order No.4249 Dt.04.06.2009 15. Anadi Ch. Panigrahi S.D.H.S., Kanhapada Order No.4209 Dt.03.06.2009 16. Amulya Kumar Patra J.H.S., Purusottampur Order No.4204 Dt.03.06.2009 17. Kamalakanta Das M.H.S., Kusuti Order No.4199 Dt,03-06-2009 Regarding compliance to the findings of the Departmental Audit para-6 of the A/R No.09/2012-13, consequent upon such withdrawal the incumbents are entitled to receive their initial salaries from dt.30.08.2008 in the prescribed Scale of Pay with usual D.A. as admissible from time to time. Sd/-P.K. Joshi District Education Officer, Balasore Xx xx xx” 15. Learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department submits that due to audit objection, the arrear amount already paid to the petitioners was directed to be recovered. The notification does not disclose about the order of the Hon’ble Supreme court as well as this Court by virtue of which the petitioners were extended the benefit of payment of arrear salary. Moreover, the audit report is not placed before the Court to satisfy the necessity of issue of such letter in question avoiding the order of Courts. The law of the land being enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has got binding effect under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the audit report is not placed before the Court to satisfy the necessity of issue of such letter in question avoiding the order of Courts. The law of the land being enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has got binding effect under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In absence of any audit report and any reference of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the Office Order dated 31.05.2013 issued by the District Education Officer, Balasore, the same cannot stand in the eye of law being de hors the law of the land. Moreover, the Government order cannot be issued to frustrate the order issued by the Courts. Thus, the same is liable to be quashed. Point No.(II) is answered accordingly. 16. CONCLUSION In the writ petitions, it has been prayed to allow the arrear salary after quashing the Office Order dated 31.05.2013 and also it is prayed to direct the opposite parties not to realise the differential arrear salary already received by the petitioners, which has been paid after due calculation as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. 17. In terms of the above discussions, the petitioners are appointed as 4th Peon by virtue of order of this Court as well as by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court from the date of their respective approval for such post and the Government Order dated 07.05.2008 does not stand on the way as the benefit is not prospective but as per the orders of the Courts. Since the impugned office order dated 31.05.2013 in the respective writ petitions are liable to be quashed, the Court do so. Thus, the opposite parties are hereby directed to calculate the arrear salary of the petitioners for the period they asked for in their respective writ petitions and after due calculation, make payment of the same to the petitioners within a period of four months from today failing which the same shall be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Wherever the arrear salary and differential arrear salary already paid to the petitioners after due calculation, the same shall not be recovered. All the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.