Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 546 (ORI)

Manoj Kumar Naik v. State of Odisha

2022-12-02

S.K.SAHOO

body2022
JUDGMENT S.K. Sahoo, J. - This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a date chart, copy of the GIA petition and copy of the notification dated 22.10.2017 of the Department of Higher Education, which are taken on record. 3. The appellant Manoj Kumar Naik, who is working as a Lecturer in Mathematics in Balangi (Degree) Mahavidyalaya, Sunahat, Balasore, has filed this appeal under section 24-C of the Odisha Education Act, 1969 challenging the order dated 23.12.2019 of the State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar passed in GIA Case No. 239 of 2019. 4. The GIA Case was filed by the appellant, inter alia, with a prayer to direct the State authorities to release Block Grant in his favour in terms of Odisha (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-aid Order, 2008 (hereafter 2008 Order') instead of his present salary in the fold of Odisha (Non-Government Colleges, Junior Colleges and Higher Secondary Schools) Grant-in-Aid in the shape of Block Grant Order, 2014 (hereafter 2014 Order'). 5. Learned Education Tribunal considering Annexure-5, which is the notification dated 14th March 2017 of the Principal Secretary to Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education that the institution of the petitioner has been notified as an aided educational institution in terms of 2014 Order, has been pleased to observe that unless College is re-notified in terms of 2008 Order, the appellant in no circumstance is eligible to receive Block Grant in terms of the said Order. 6. Mr. Saswat Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of the 2008 Order and contended that the eligibility and criteria for consideration for Block Grant have been provided under Order 4 of 2008 Order and Order 8 stipulates that eligible institutions are to make application to the Director in Form A along with copies of the documents specified therein and the application has to be made and signed jointly by the President and Secretary of the Governing Body. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the State that after such application is made, there are provisions for inspection of the educational institution and enquiry and then report has to be submitted by the Director to the State Government and thereafter necessary orders will be passed. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the State that after such application is made, there are provisions for inspection of the educational institution and enquiry and then report has to be submitted by the Director to the State Government and thereafter necessary orders will be passed. It is further stated that similar provision is available under Order 6 of the 2014 Order. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the State that since the educational institution i.e. the college of the petitioner is not coming forward to challenge the notification under Annexure-5 regarding coming up of the institution under the 2014 Order, the petitioner has no locus standi to claim any benefit under the fold of 2008 Order as he is just an employee of the institution. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant seeks some time to produce certain documents in order to substantiate the legal points as to whether an employee can raise grievance against the Government for claiming benefit of Block Grant under a particular Order particularly when the educational institution in which he is serving is satisfied with the notification of the Government in coming under the fold of 2014 Block Grant Order. 8. As prayed for, list this matter in a week commencing 12th December 2022 under the heading of 'Fresh Admission'. 9. A copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State.