Employees of fully aided minority educational institutions are entitled to retirement benefits under the relevant rules and orders, as established by case laws.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.- The petitioner, who was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Mission Minority Primary School and on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service w.e.f. 28.02.1995, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Annexure-2 dated 12.12.2005 rejecting his claim for getting pension and other retirement benefits as deemed and admissible to the post w.e.f. 01.03.1995 along with interest.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that in order to improve and create a literacy atmosphere within the children of backward class of Sundargarh district, more than 200 educational institutions were established by the Christian Community which were managed by Catholic Board of Education, a registered society, having its Head Office at 'Bishop's House, Hamirpur, Rourkela. Mission Minority Primary Schools established by the Christian Community are protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and the primary schools, which were established and recognized at different points of time having been eligible, were brought under the grant-in-aid fold and became fully aided educational institutions. The petitioner, having got requisite qualification and being selected, was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Mission Minority Primary School. Consequentially, he joined in such post on 01.10.1962.On attaining the age of superannuation, he was issued with notice of superannuation and consequentially he was relived from his duty on 28.02.1995, while serving at Kutunia Primary School, Kutunia, Sundargarh.

2.1 The petitioner, being an employee of aided educational institution, having not been extended with the retiral benefit, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 10915 of 2003. This Court, vide order dated 12.03.2004, disposed of the writ petition with an observation that Inspector of Schools, Sundargarh Circle, Sundargarh shall scrutinize the pension papers of the petitioner in consonance with the ratio decided in the case of "Patras and Benedict" and on scrutiny if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to pension, pass necessary orders for disbursement of the same within six months from the date of communication of the order. On submission of such pension papers, along with copy of the order passed by this Court, opposite party no.3-Inspector of Schools, Sundargarh Circle, Sundargarh, vide order dated 12.12.2005, rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension on the ground that his case is neither coming under the Orissa Aided Educational Institution Employees Retirement Benefits Rules, 1981 (for short "Rules, 1981) nor O.E. (Minority Managed Aided Educational Institution Employees "Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service") Order, 2003 (for short "O.E. Order, 2003") and, as such, the petitioner having retired from service with effect from 28.02.1995 is not entitled to get pensionary benefits as prayed for. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Mr. A.K. Mishra-2, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly the petitioner was serving in Mission Minority Primary School, which is a fully aided educational institution, and as per the resolution dated 11.07.1984 passed by the Government of Odisha in Education & Youth Services Department, the provisions of the Rules, 1981 are applicable to the institutions established and administered by minorities for extension of retirement benefits and that O.E. Order, 2003 is a beneficial one for payment of pension to the retirees. It is further contended that eligibility to grant retirement benefits to the employees of minority institutions no more remains res integra in view of the decisions of this Court in Patras Soreng v. State of Orissa, 1993 (II) OLR 272, as well as in Benedict Xalxo v. State of Orissa & others, OJC No. 5556 of 1993 disposed of on 17.01.1997. The petitioners in both the above noted writ petitions were retired prior to 01.04.1997 and were allowed to receive pension. Thereby, contended that the rejection or