AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 379 wordsA.K.Mohapatra, J
Heard Mr.S. Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department. None appears for the Petitioner when the matter is called.
On perusal of the writ petition, it is found that the present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to quash the order No.13724, dated 20th December, 2012 and Order No.1625, dated 26th February, 2013 passed by the Opposite Party No.3 and further prayed to treat the above period from 2001 to 2011 as duty period and to allow the financial benefits accruing in favour of the Petitioner during the said period. Petitioner has also claimed the salary cost in the TGT scale of pay as regular not notional from the date of his engagement till reinstatement with all incremental benefits.
During course of submission, Mr.Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-4, which clearly reveals that the service of the Petitioner has been terminated on 27th February, 2001. Again Mr. Jena draws the attention of this Court to order dated 20th April, 2005 passed in O.A. No.1852 of 2000 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar. In view of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, the Petitioner was reinstated in service. Further it was directed to grant all benefits attached to the post except for the period from which he was out of service. Further it has been observed that the intervening period from the date of discharge/termination and till his reinstatement, if any be treated as leave of any count, which order has not been further challenged by the Petitioner and it has attained finality. The Petitioner had been taken back in service and the order passed by the learned Tribunal has been complied with by the respondents therein.
In such view of the matter, the Petitioner is not entitled to any other benefits in the present writ petition, as such, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to seek for modification/variation of the order in the event it is felt by the Petitioner that further relief could still be granted to him.
The writ petition stands dismissed with the liberty as aforesaid.
.............................