JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition at the instance of the Orissa Secondary Education School Association, Nimchouri, Cuttack represented by its General Secretary inter alia challenging the letter no.12563/SME dated 9.9.2020 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Schools and Mass Education thereby withdrawing the effect of letter No.16029 dated 1.8.2019 issued by the same authority on the premises being passed in non-application of mind, colourable exercise of power, arbitrary as well as contemptuous being contrary to the judgment pronounced by this Court in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul Vrs. State of Odisha and others, reported in 2016(I)-ILR-CUT- 1162. The issue involved herein already involved in another case also heard on the same date involving W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 and being decided by a judgment of this date in favour of the petitioner involved therein. Mr.B. Routray, learned Senior Advocate on the major issue involved herein particularly in an attempt to make a distinction between supersession and repeal, reading through the provision at Section 6 of General Clauses Act, Central Act and Section-5 of General Clauses Act of the State submitted that this provision deals with the effect on Repeal of a previous enactment whereas the case at hand taking into account the Rule 2020 being brought on suppression of previous rule attempted to establish the position involving both remain completely different and rights accrued under the old Rule to the pending cases still exist. To establish his such contention, Mr.Routray, learned Senior Counsel relied on decision in the case Gammon India Ltd. Vrs. Special Chief Secretary and other, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 354 and another case involving Union of India Vrs. Glaxo India Limited, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 668 . This aspect along with several other aspects have been considered in the disposal of W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 and judgment in the said case delivered today also applicable to the case at hand. The only exception involved herein an objection being raised by learned Advocate General appearing for the opposite parties questioning the maintainability of such dispute at the instance of an association. 2. The only exception involved herein an objection being raised by learned Advocate General appearing for the opposite parties questioning the maintainability of such dispute at the instance of an association. 2. For the majority of the issue involved herein being covered by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 and the principle decided therein since also covers the members of the petitioner's association, this Court while applying the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27364 of 2020 also extends the benefits to the members of the petitioner's association including declaration that there is no illegality in the withdrawal letter dated 9.9.2020. This Court next proceeds only to adjudicate if the writ petition is maintainable in the eye of law ? 3. Mr.Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner while attending to the preliminary objection of the State- Opposite Parties on the maintainability of the proceeding involving the locus of the petitioner, Mr.Routray also submitted that since petitioner is a registered Association of Teachers in the State of Odisha is entitled to espouse the cause of its members. It is also pleaded that the issue involved here since teaching staff in educational institution for involving a common cause in entertaining the writ petition, it will rather check innumerable litigants on similar issue flowing to this Court. Mr. Routray also attempted to satisfy that the writ petition is very much maintainable based on the principle of law already decided by the Hon'ble apex Court through several judgments. In the process, Mr.Routray, learned Senior Advocate took this Court to two Constitutional Bench decisions of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of B.S. Nakara Vrs. Union of India, reported in 1983(1) SCC 305 and the other one involving Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association Vrs. Union of India, reported in 2006 (8) SCC 309 attempted to satisfy his such contention. 4. Mr.Ashok Parija, learned Advocate General on the other hand placing serious objection on the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the association contended that for the settled position of law through W.P.(C) No.19484 of 2020 decided on 14.8.2020 an association has no locus standi to apply for a writ petition while the subject involved therein does not involve the affairs of the association and reiterated that the benefits being granted to the employees personally. Mr. Parija to satisfy this Court, took this Court to paragraphs-6 to 12 of the said judgment. Mr. Parija to satisfy this Court, took this Court to paragraphs-6 to 12 of the said judgment. Mr.Parija, learned Advocate General claims that the decision relied on by the petitioner's side is clearly distinguishable and thus has no application to the case at hand. 5. This Court considering the rival contentions of the respective senior counsels finds even though the judgment of this Court relied on by the State has no application to the case at hand. On the other hand coming to explain the decision relied on by Mr. Routray in the case of D.S. Nakara Vrs. Union of India, reported in 1983 (1) SCC 305 in deciding the similar issue at paragraph-64 of the said judgment, this Court has come to observe as follows : '64. Locus standi of 3rd petitioner was questioned. Petitioner 3 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. It is a non-political non-profit and voluntary organisation. Its members consist of public-spirited citizens who have taken up the cause of ventilating legitimate public problems. This Society received a large number of representations from old pensioners, individually unable to undertake the journey through labyrinths of legal judicial process, costly and protracted, and, therefore, approached Petitioner 3 which espoused their cause. Objects for which the 3rd petitioner Society was formed were not questioned. The majority decision of this Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [1981 Supp SCC 87, 218] rules that any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision. Third petitioner seeks to enforce rights that may be available to a large number of old infirm retirees. Therefore, its locus standi is unquestionable. But it is a point of academic importance because locus standi of Petitioners 1 and 2 was never questioned.' 6. Similarly in the case of Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association and others Vrs. Union of India and others, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 399 , through paragraphs 9, 12, 23 and 24, another Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble apex Court has come to hold as follows : '9. Similarly in the case of Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association and others Vrs. Union of India and others, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 399 , through paragraphs 9, 12, 23 and 24, another Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble apex Court has come to hold as follows : '9. The grievance of the petitioner is that though several attempts had been made by the Associations, the Government of India had never taken the matter seriously as regards the medical services to be provided to ex-servicemen. Though they have a valuable right of full and free medicare, which is a fundamental right, no concrete and effective steps had been taken by the respondents which constrained them to approach this Court by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution. According to them, keeping in view the services rendered by ex-defence personnel and the diseases sustained by them, they are entitled to necessary medical facilities. It was also their case that free and full medical facilities are part and parcel of their fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution as also covered by the directive principles in Part IV of the Constitution. In several cases, this Court has held that such facilities must be provided to government employees, past and present. According to the petitioner, such facilities are provided to government employees and also to ex-servicemen. Refusal to extend similar medical benefits to ex-defence personnel is thus arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. 12. A counter-affidavit by Mr V.K. Jain, Under-Secretary, Ministry of Defence on behalf of the Union of India was filed on 24-1-2002 raising inter alia, preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition as also objections on merits. A technical objection was raised by the respondents that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner Associations were not registered associations and, therefore, had no locus standi. On merits, it was submitted that ex-servicemen were provided assured inpatient and outpatient treatment as specified in the Regulations of 1983 within the available resources of the State. According to the Union, full and free medical aid for ex- servicemen cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It has never been claimed for more than fifty years of independence. Ex- servicemen and their dependents are entitled to medical treatment in military hospitals. According to the Union, full and free medical aid for ex- servicemen cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It has never been claimed for more than fifty years of independence. Ex- servicemen and their dependents are entitled to medical treatment in military hospitals. They are also given financial assistance from the group insurance scheme and from the armed forces flag day fund for treatment outside military hospitals. On the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, the Government had sanctioned fixed medical allowance of Rs 100 per month to those ex-servicemen and their families who reside in the areas where facilities of armed forces hospitals/clinics are not available. Over and above those facilities, other facilities were also provided, such as mobile medical teams, medical vans, army group insurance medical benefit scheme, army dialysis centres, etc. It was then stated that the Government had extended certain medical amenities to ex-servicemen and their dependents within the available sources. Ex-servicemen and their family members are given free outpatient treatment in nearest military hospitals and are also given medicines. Regarding military hospitals, it was stated by the deponent that such hospitals are essentially meant for treatment of in-service defence personnel for whom it is a service requirement to ensure defence preparedness. Ex- servicemen are provided inpatient treatment in military hospitals, subject to the availability of beds within the authorised strength and without detriment to the needs of in-service defence personnel. It was, however, conceded that the scheme did not cover treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis, leprosy, mental diseases or malignant diseases. 23. We are also satisfied that the contention of the respondent is even otherwise not tenable at law. A similar point came up before a Constitution Bench of this Court in the well-known decision in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [ (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145]. There also, one of the petitioners was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It approached this Court for ventilating the grievances of a large number of old and infirm retirees who were individually unable to approach a court of law for redressal of their grievances. This Court held locus standi of the society 'unquestionable'. In the present case, apart from the fact that a larger public issue and cause is involved, even individually, all associations are registered associations of ex-servicemen. This Court held locus standi of the society 'unquestionable'. In the present case, apart from the fact that a larger public issue and cause is involved, even individually, all associations are registered associations of ex-servicemen. The petitioner Confederation representing those associations which is also registered, can certainly approach this Court by invoking the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. We, therefore, reject the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and hold that the petitioner Confederation has locus standi to file the petition. 24. In our view, however, maintainability of petition and justiciability of issues raised therein are two different, distinct and independent matters and one cannot be mixed or interlinked with the other.' 7. This Court considering the citations cited by both Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Parija, learned Advocate General for State-opposite parties finds for the support of the decisions to the case of the petitioner on the question of locus standi and maintainability of the writ petition through two of the Constitutional Bench decisions, there is no strength in the contention on the locus standi issue being raised by the State and thus holds the writ petition is very much maintainable. So far other claims in the writ petition involved, this Court observes answering to such issues having already been covered by delivery of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020, the judgment delivered therein stands applicable also to the members of this petitioner's association. The writ petition thus succeeds. No costs.