JUDGMENT : B. R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner has filed this application challenging the order dated 04.04.2007 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.1456 of 2003, by which the order of punishment imposed against opposite party no.1 has been quashed. 2. Nineteen Original Applications, including O.A. No.1456 of 2003, were heard together by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal wherein challenge was made to the order of punishment passed against each of the applicants, after their retirement from service. Opposite party no.1, who was the applicant in O.A. No.1456 of 2003, was served with the order of punishment by the State Government, which was to the effect that loss of amount was to be recovered and adjusted against unutilized leave salary at first stage; balance amount if any be adjusted against gratuity; balance amount after adjustment of gratuity be attached to his monthly pension at the rate not exceeding 1/3rd of pension; and in the event of non-recovery of the full amount of loss sustained by Government by way of aforesaid means, the balance amount would be recovered by filing money suit against the delinquent officer as per rules. 3. The factual matrix leading to initiation of proceeding against opposite party no.1 is that he, while continuing as District Inspector of Schools at different places, committed irregularities in giving appointment to some Primary School Teachers under the O.C.S. (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990. It was ascertained, on enquiry, that the State Government sustained financial loss by paying salary during the training period to those untrained candidates, who were appointed as Primary School Teachers ignoring the Government orders issued. Therefore, for the purpose of recovery of financial loss, each of the District Inspector of Schools, including opposite party no.1, were directed to refund the amounts that were paid to such Primary School Teachers. That order was passed by the State Government in consultation with the Orissa Public Service Commission. Accordingly, opposite party no.1 filed O.A. No.1456 of 2003 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for quashing of such punishment order passed by the authority concerned. 4. The State authority filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that from 05.09.1989 the Primary School Teachers were declared as Government servants for which all rules of Government servants were applicable to such employees. Accordingly, opposite party no.1 filed O.A. No.1456 of 2003 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for quashing of such punishment order passed by the authority concerned. 4. The State authority filed counter affidavit stating inter alia that from 05.09.1989 the Primary School Teachers were declared as Government servants for which all rules of Government servants were applicable to such employees. Without taking into consideration those rules and the clarifications issued by the State Government from time to time, appointments were given to some persons as Primary School Teachers, having no requisite qualification. Consequentially, the Government was compelled to sponsor those Primary School Teachers for C.T. training, as per requirement for the post, and during such training period of two years the Government had to pay their salary at the rate of Rs. 48,000/- per annum for each teacher. Accordingly, as the State Government sustained loss, steps were taken for recovery of such amount by initiating proceedings against opposite party no.1 and other similarly situated persons those who had filed separate Original Applications before the Tribunal for just and proper adjudication. 5. The Orissa Public Service Commission had agreed to the punishment proposed to be given by the State Government. Some of the delinquents though preferred appeals, but some of them also approached the Tribunal against the orders of punishment, which were heard together and disposed of by the common order dated 04.04.2007, which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present application. 6. Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department argued with vehemence contending that since opposite party no.1 had not adhered to the direction issued by the State Government and had given appointment to some untrained candidates as Primary School Teachers on compassionate ground under O.C.S.(Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, who had no requisite qualification, and allowed them to undergo training, the Government sustained loss by paying salary during the training period. Therefore, the Government sought for recovery of the said amount from opposite party no.1 by following departmental proceeding, which is justified. As such, learned Tribunal has committed illegality and irregularity by interfering with the said order. Therefore, the order dated 04.04.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal has to be set aside. 7. Perused the record. Therefore, the Government sought for recovery of the said amount from opposite party no.1 by following departmental proceeding, which is justified. As such, learned Tribunal has committed illegality and irregularity by interfering with the said order. Therefore, the order dated 04.04.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal has to be set aside. 7. Perused the record. It appears that against the order dated 04.04.2007 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1456 of 2003, the State has approached this Court by filing this writ application on 15.07.2008. But, no efforts have been made to get the matter listed. However, when the matter was listed on 23.07.2014, none appeared at the time of call due to strike called by the lawyers. The matter was directed to be listed on usual course. Thereafter, the matter has been listed today, i.e., 30.07.2018, which is after more than ten years of filing of the writ application. By the time the writ application was filed, opposite party no.1 was 66 years and by this time he must have attained the age of 76 years. Therefore, at this belated stage if the order of punishment is implemented, it will cause prejudice to opposite party no.1. 8. Otherwise also, the order passed by the learned Tribunal clearly indicates that the Education and Youth Services Department of the State Government issued a resolution on 20.05.1985 to provide rehabilitation assistance to the families of non-Government Primary School Teachers under Education and Youth Services Department, who died or suffered from permanent incapacitation while in service. In the said resolution, it was clarified that one member of such family would be eligible for appointment in a Class III or Class IV post under Government, including the post of Primary School Teacher or as the Primary School Teacher in a non-Government Primary School subject to condition that the member of the family who sought to avail of the facility possessed the requisite educational or technical qualification required for the post. It was also clarified that if such a person sought appointment as Primary School Teacher, whether in a Government or in a non-Government Primary School, he might be appointment as such if he possessed the requisite educational qualification and if such a person did not possess the requisite training qualification he/she would be required to acquire the necessary training qualifications within a period of three years from the date of appointment as a teacher in Primary School. An untrained person appointed as a Primary School Teacher would receive pay in the scale applicable to Untrained Matriculate Teachers till he/she acquired the training qualification. It was further clarified in the said resolution that rehabilitation assistance would be available only for initial appointment and not for promotion in service. 9. But subsequently, OCS (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 were framed and came to force with effect from 13.09.1990. Rule-5 of the Rules, 1990 clarified that in deserving cases, a member of the family of a Government Servant, who was permanently incapacitated or who died while in service might be appointed to any Class III or Class IV post by the appointing authority of that Government servant provided he/she possessed the requisite minimum education qualification prescribed for the post without following the procedure prescribed for recruitment to the post either by statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or otherwise irrespective of the fact that recruitment is made by notification of vacancies to the Employment Exchange or through recruitment examination under relevant cadre rules. 10. In terms of aforesaid rules, several persons were appointed as Primary School Teachers, including the present appointees. But few of such Primary School Teachers, who did not get their salary, filed cases before the Tribunal assailing the inaction of the competent authority for non-payment of salary and one such case is O.A. No.944 of 1993. After due adjudication, learned Tribunal by order dated 09.11.1993 directed the Inspector of Schools, Mayurbhanj at Baripada to disburse the salary of the petitioners therein as due and admissible to them within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. In terms of the said order, the salary was paid to the petitioners therein. The State Government has not challenged the said order in any other forum thereby the State Government had accepted the order of the Tribunal as final. In terms of the said order, the salary was paid to the petitioners therein. The State Government has not challenged the said order in any other forum thereby the State Government had accepted the order of the Tribunal as final. Therefore, the salary of the Primary School Teachers during the training period once paid in terms of the direction of the Tribunal and the same having not been challenged, it reached its finality. As such, the District Inspector of Schools, including the present opposite party no.1, had no role to play, as the orders of appointment issued to the persons concerned had made a specific condition that they being appointed, without possessing necessary training qualification, would have to obtain training qualification within a period of three years of their appointment. Therefore, the salary during the training period was paid lawfully. As such, by virtue of order, if the benefit has been granted to the persons suffered and the same reached its finality, for the self-same cause of action opposite party no.1 could not have been proceeded with departmentally and found guilty imposing punishment for recovery. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 04.04.2007 in O.A. No.1456 of 2003, has considered the same in proper perspective and quashed the order of punishment directing to recover the amount from opposite party no.1. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the order dated 04.04.2007 so as to warrant interference of this Court at this stage. 11. Accordingly, we find no merits in this writ application, which is hereby dismissed. No order to costs. Final Result : Dismissed