Back
2018 Supreme(Ori) 859
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Tapas Kumar Roy - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha - Respondent
W.P. © No. 341 of 2018
Decided On : 27-03-2018
The main legal point established is that after tendering resignation, the past service rendered by a public servant will be forfeited for all practical purposes.
Headnote:
resignation - service continuation - Orissa Education Act, 1969 - Rule 6 of the Odisha Aided Educational Institutions-Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 - The court discussed the petitioner's claim for service continuation beyond 20.11.1981 and the rejection of the claim by the Director of Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. The court highlighted the legal provisions of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 and Rule 6 of the Odisha Aided Educational Institutions-Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981, and their interpretation in the context of the petitioner's resignation and subsequent service.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed service continuation from 28.11.1981 till 11.1.1989 for pensionary benefits, alleging forced resignation. The court analyzed the petitioner's resignation, subsequent appointments, and series of representations made before the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for service continuation and pensionary benefits lacked merit, considering the resignation, subsequent appointments, and representations made by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's claim for service continuation, forced resignation, and entitlement to pensionary benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate the forced resignation and subsequent service continuation, leading to the dismissal of the claim for pensionary benefits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, as the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim for service continuation and pensionary benefits.
ORDER
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is against the order dated 29.7.2017 passed by the Director of Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-10 whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for giving a declaration that he has continued in service beyond 20.11.1981 has been rejected being devoid of merit.
2. The facts of the case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed against the 1st post of Lecturer in English in Kanpur Anchalika Mohavidyalaya, Kanpur by the decision taken by the Governing Body of the said college vide order dated 18.12.1978. The said college has got recognition aria affiliation from Utkal University in the year 1980 and came under grant-in-aid w.e.f. 1986-87. Thereafter, the college acquired the status of an aided educational institution within a meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. The petitioner, being the senior most lecturer of the said college, was appointed as Principal-in-Charge on 09.09.1981 vide Governing Body Resolution No. 7 dated 29-10-1981.
The petitioner while continuing as such, the then Secretary of the Governing Body, has forced him to tender his resignation. Succumbing to said compulsion, he has tendered his resignation on 24.8.1981. But he immediately thereafter made several representations to the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar as also lodged the F.I.R. against the Secretary of the College before the local police station, but it was not entertained by the local police station and thereafter, he was relieved. The petitioner thereafter has got another appointment in M.S. College, Baramba, Cuttack and joined there on 11.1.1989.
Petitioner claimed that he be treated in service right from 28.11.1981 till 11.1.1989 and thereby the intervening period be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefit.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he has made series of representations before his resignation, but when it has not been taken into consideration, he having no option, has approached to this Court by filing a writ petition being O.J.C. No.5113 of 1993 which was disposed of vide order dated 4.10.1993 by directing the opposite party No. 1 to take decision on the representation within period of three months. In view thereof, the petitioner has represented, but the Collector has rejected the same by a non-speaking order dated 7-10-1994.
The petitioner has again approached this Court by filing another writ petition being O.J.C. No. 18360 of 1997 assailing the order dated 7.10.1994 passed by the Collector, Cuttack and this Court vide order dated 4.5.1998 disposed of that writ petition with an observation that the petitioner may file an-appeal before the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar who, in turn, was directed to dispose of the appeal, but the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar has dismissed the said appeal on 25.3.2000 on the ground that the college has already been admitted to the grant-in-aid fold in the year 1986-87.
The petitioner has again approached this Court by filing a writ petition being O.J.C.No. 5334 of 2000 challenging the order dated 25.3.2000 passed by the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and this Court, vide order dated 5.1.2012 while disposing of the said writ petition, has directed the Director, Higher Education, Odisha to pass an order afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In pursuant thereto, the petitioner has taken additional ground that the period from 28.11.1981 till the subsequent appointment be counted as a continuous service, but the Director, Higher Education, Odisha has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 29.7.2017, against which, the instant writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Director, Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar has passed an order without appreciating the material aspect, especially the resignation part, since the petitioner has taken spe
