ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.
6 SECTION XI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9531/2024
(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 08-01-2024 in WA
No. 3217/2023 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack)
STATE OF ODISHA & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DHIREN KUMAR SAHOO Respondent(s)
(IA No.99421/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 29-04-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Adv.
Mr. Apoorv Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Soni, Adv.
Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners.
2. The counsel would argue that although Government concurrence
was given for grants in aid, in the posts in the non-Government
Aided Colleges, in the communication dated 14.05.2015 (Annexure
P/4), but the arrears accruing thereof were made subject to the
Signature Not Verified
concurrence of the Finance Department.
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2024.05.02
The counsel then reads the
10:18:11 IST
Reason:
next communication dated 25.06.2015 (Annexure P/5) to argue that
1
the arrears should be restricted for a period of three years for
the concerned beneficiary. The payment of arrears if any, is made
subject to the concurrence of the Finance Department and therefore
the State should not be burdened with full arrears without time
restriction.
3. However, the Government communication dated 14.05.2015 would
suggest that this was after obtaining concurrence of all concerned
including the Finance Department. In the circumstances, to
restrict the claim for a period of three years on the cited ground
of financial concurrence to be obtained from the Finance
Department, is not found tenable. This is also because the benefit
that was conferred, cannot be taken away, without adhering to the
principles of natural justice for the affected category.
4. In any case, the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered
on 13.04.2023 (Annexure P/7) in favour of the respondent, is based
on the earlier judgment dated 14.03.2023 in two other cases i.e.,
W.P. (C) No. 20713 of 2016 and W.P. (C) No. 22554 of 2017.
5. The relied 14.03.2023 judgment quashed the concerned
Annexure-5 which restricts the benefit to a period of three years.
Nothing is forthcoming from the State’s counsel as to whether the
said judgment dated 14.03.2023 was the subject matter of any
further challenge by the State.
6. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the
dismissal of the State’s delayed Writ Appeal by the Division Bench,
under the impugned judgment dated 08.01.2024.
2
7. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR