Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 531 (ORI)

State of Odisha v. Rama Krushna Purohit

2017-05-05

S.N.PRASAD, SANJU PANDA

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. In all the writ petitions common issue is involved, as such they are directed to be heard together, heard and being disposed of by the common order. O.J.C. No. 5453 of 2002 2. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 13.1.1999 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 2025 of 1996 has been assailed whereby and where under the Tribunal while allowing the original application has given pay protection in view of provision of Rule 74(d) of the Orissa Service Code. 3. In other writ petitions (O.J.C. Nos. 4770, 4771 and 4881 of 2002) which are being heard by this Court, wherein the original applications have been disposed by the Tribunal taking reliance of the order passed in O.A.No.2025 of 1996, hence learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department of the Government of Odisha has submitted that these cases may be heard along with O.J.C.No.5453 of 2002 wherein orders passed in the Original Application No.2025 of 1996 has been challenged. Accordingly, we have posted these three writ petitions (O.J.C. Nos. 4770, 4771 and 4881 of 2002) for analogous hearing. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the opposite party/applicant has submitted in O.J.C.No.4881 of 2002 by filing counter affidavit, has drawn attention of this Court with respect to the decision taken by the District Inspector of Schools, Kendrapara as contained in Office Order No.4100 dated 3.10.1996 wherein relief as directed by the Tribunal in its order dated 28.8.2001 which has been disposed of in terms of the order in O.A.No.2025 of 1996 which is the subject matter of O.J.C.No.5354 of 2002, has extended the entire relief and as such submits that since the authority has acted upon, upon the order passed by the Tribunal, hence nothing remains to be adjudicated here. Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department of the Government of Odisha has not disputed this factual aspect. 5. Accordingly, we after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and following the principles that once the order passed by the court of law which has been acted by the State authorities, cannot be assailed. However, it can be assailed if decision taken by the authority is subject to condition that it will depend upon outcome of the pending litigation. Accordingly, we after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and following the principles that once the order passed by the court of law which has been acted by the State authorities, cannot be assailed. However, it can be assailed if decision taken by the authority is subject to condition that it will depend upon outcome of the pending litigation. While going through the office order No.4100 dated 3.10.2006 we have not found that the said order is conditional once, hence considering the fact that the order passed by the Tribunal has been given effect to, nothing remains to be decided by this Court, rather it will be said to be infructuous. 6. We, after taking into consideration the factual aspects and the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party in OJC No.4881 of 2002, are of the considered view that all the writ petitions are based upon the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2025 of 1996 and since one of the order passed by the tribunal has been acted upon by extending benefit, hence nothing remains to be decided in the writ petitions. Accordingly, we dispose of all the writ petitions holding the same as infractions.