Private institution eligible to be grand aid from the State government: Cuttack High Court
The Government of Orissa in school and Mass Educational Department have issued a clarification that all pending applications under the scheme of an aided educational institution (fully aided under the direct control of government due to death of invalid on or after 1990) shall be scrutinized by the existing screening committee for consideration of appointment under the scheme held by Hon’ble Justice Biswanath Rath in the matters of Sarajini Jena v. State of Orisha and Ors. [ W.P.(C) No. 21320 of 2021]. The background of the case involves that the petitioner husband was working as a Graduate teacher. It was claimed that the employee died in harness leaving behind the petitioner as a widow and two minor children. After the untimely death, the family members receive a setback since the petitioner husband was the sole bread-earner of his family.  The premise is that husband of the petitioner was working in an aided educational institution by way of a block grant. Petitioner submitted an application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme but the application for rehabilitation assistance appointment at the instance of the petitioner was not accepted. The application was accepted only after the decision of the court through Ritanjali Giri @Paul, there is a creation of a right in favour of the person already involving block grant schools required to be treated like that of the employees in the aided educational institution. Section 3(b) of the Orissa Educational Act, 1969 defines the Aided Educational Institutions as “Private educational institution which is eligible to and is receiving grand-in-aid from the state government and includes an educational institution which has been notified by the state government to receive grant-in-aid”. The Head Master of the school forwarded the application of the petitioner to the District Education Officer with all required documents. The school where the husband of the petitioner was serving come within the meaning of a fully aided educational institution.   The Hon’ble Court observed that no distinction between the aided and government institution considering the nature of duty discharged by person involves both categories. In considering the nature of the service involved, the petitioner being an employee in the aided institution should be treated at par with the employee of the government establishment. Also, once the benefit is granted to the particular person the same benefit should be extended to all such people standing on a similar footing. Therefore, the Writ petition stand is allowed and no costs.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Sarajini Jena W.P.(C) No.213221 Mr. Sidheswar Mallik versus State of Odisha and Ors. Opposite Parties Mr. D. Mohapatra Standing Counsel for S. & M.E. JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH Date of Hearing and Judgment:15.09.2021 This writ petition involves a direction to the opposite parties to provide employment to the petitioner on consideration of her application under rehabilitation assistance scheme following the ratio decided in the case of Ritanjali Giri @ Paul Vrs. State of Odisha & Ors. reported in 2016 ILR CUT 1162. Background involving the case is that petitioner’s husband late Gangadhar Jena was working as a trained graduate teacher in 03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 Sarath Biswal Vidyapitha Andalsingh under Kanas Block in the district of Puri. It is claimed that while the husband was continuing in his above capacity died in harness on 29.04.2011 leaving behind the petitioner as widow and two minor children. It is in the premises that husband of the petitioner was working in an aided educational institution by way of block grant. Petitioner submitted application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme but however the application for rehabilitation assistance appointment at the instance of the petitioner was not accepted. It is only after decision of this Court came through Ritanjali Giri @ Paulthere is creation of a right in favour of the persons already involving block grant schools required to be treated like that of the employees in the aided educational institutions. It is after coming to know this legal position petitioner appointment under rehabilitation assistance scheme following decision vide Ritanjali Giri @ Paul by submitting another application on 25.06.2020. It is also claimed that in the meantime the Head Master of the School forwarded the application of the petitioner to the District Education Officer Puri with all required documents vide his letter dated 25.06.2020. It is alleged even though an evaluation is made of all the applications received in the office of the District 3 Education Officer Puri wherein petitioner was found to have secured 80% of the maximum marks highest amongst all candidates considered but however while depriving the petitioner one Prasant Kumar Mangraj’s case was considered for appointment in disposal of W.P.(C) No.132821. Mr. Mallik learned counsel for the petitioner in the above backdrop of the matter and for the petitioner’s case getting support through Ritanjali Giri @ Paul as well as the decision in W.P.(C) No.13289 of 2021 claimed for allowing the writ petition and issuing appropriate direction to the competent authority for providing appointment to the petitioner. Mr.Mohapatra learned counsel appearing for the State Department opposed the move of the petitioner on the premises that there being no final decision involving the petitioner it should be treated as a pending case no writ is entertainable at this stage. Mr. further also contended the meantime correspondences extending benefit of Rehabilitation Assistance Appointment to Aided Institutions having been recalled. The claim of the petitioner does not deserve any merit. Mr.Mohapatra therefore objected entertaining of the writ petition for having no merit otherwise. 4 Considering the rival contentions of the parties this Court finds undisputedly the application for Rehabilitation Assistance Appointment at the instance of the petitioner is still pending this Court in disposal of W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 decided on 13.9.2021 already came to hold that pending applications shall be considered in the light of the provision under Orissa Civil Services Rehabilitation Assistance Rules) 1990 and amended Rule 2016. This Apart in deciding Ritanjali Giri @ Paul this Court also observed there should not be any distinction between the aided and government institution taking into account the nature of duty discharged by persons involving both categories. Further in disposal of W.P.(C) No.27634 of 2020 this Court taking into consideration several judgments of Hon’ble apex Court has also come to hold that for the nature of service involved petitioner being an employee in aided institution should be treated at par with the employee of the government establishment. It is also observed therein that once benefit is granted to a particular person the same benefit has to be extended to all such persons standing in similar footing. It is in the circumstance but however taking this case to be a pending case as the application of the petitioner for appointment is still pending final decision this Court in disposal of the writ petition directs the 5 opposite party nos.2 and 3 to take final decision on the pending application of the petitioner but however keeping in view the ratio decided in Ritanjali Giri @ Paulas well as the judgment of this Court dated 13.09.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.276320 by undertaking the entire exercise within a period of three months and also keeping in view if similar benefits have been granted to Prasant Kumar Mangaraj on the basis of disposal of W.P.(C) No.13289 of The writ petition thus stands disposed of. .. …. ... ….. BISWANATH RATH J. Orissa High Court Cuttack. Dated the 15thday of September 2021 uks PA 