GANDHARBA CHARAN PARIDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition with the following prayer :

(2.) It is the admitted position in the case that the petitioner was continuing as Head Pandit of Adarsa Ayurbed Bidyalaya, Town Hall Road, Cuttack. In a development taken place, pursuant to the order dated 27.04.2002 (Annexure-3) passed by the Inspector of Schools, Cuttack Circle, Cuttack four of the teachers of the Adarsa Ayurbed Bidyalaya, Town Hall Road, Cuttack were deputed from the particular school to different schools mentioned therein and in the very same letter, at the bottom thereof, a direction was given to the Head Pandit of the School to submit the absentee statement of the concerned employees at the time for preparation of bills. The record further discloses that by issuing a letter dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure-5) even though the particular school was derecognized by virtue of letter no. 7837/SME, dated 07.04.2005, in second para of the letter, the petitioner who was then functioning as a Head Pandit and managing the establishment, was directed to remain as the custodian of the assets of the School. The said letter also discloses a request to the Director to release the salary of the staff till they are absorbed in other school and this letter makes it clear that the petitioner remained as the only staff of the said school. In a subsequent development, in issuing a telegraph vide memo no. 321, dated 31.07.2009 indicating therein that the petitioner who was Head Pandit of the said school and to retire on 31.07.2009 the Inspector of School, Cuttack was requested to take over the charge from the petitioner as appearing at Annexure-10. A counter is filed by the opposite party no.3 on 12th August, 2011 and in the counter affidavit in paragraphs 6 & 7, it is submitted that the school was derecognized from a particular date on account of having no required students strength in the school. Similarly in the counter filed by the opposite party no.4 in Para-6, it is submitted by the parties that in view of the derecognition of the school the salary component of the teachers of the institution is deemed to have been seized with effect from 07.01.2005 and since the claim of the petitioner relates to the period from 2005 and onwards, can not be considered and the counsel for the School and Mass Education Department even went to submit that since the petitioner remained as custodian of the assets, he can at best be treated as a watchman and entitled to the salary of a watchman and not as Head Pundit.

(3.) It is further contended by the opposite party no.4 by making averment in paragraph-13 that the indication in the last portion as made in Annexure-10 on 31.7.2009, is under mistaken facts and the same needs to be ignored.