BICHITRANANDA BEHERA versus STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

BICHITRANANDA BEHERA versus STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

The Court held that the appellant's appointment by the Managing Committee of 15.12.1992 and service from 14.05.1994 was not void ab initio, records and verification showed actual continuance on the post, Respondent No.5 delayed for over 12 years in asserting his claim and had effectively acquiesced (and was found to have worked in another school), and therefore his belated claim was barred by delay and laches; consequently the Tribunal and High Court orders in favour of Respondent No.5 were set aside and the appellant was entitled to continuance from 14.05.1994 with consequential benefits, while the State was directed under Article 142 to pay Respondent No.5 a lump-sum of INR 3,00,000 as...

Parties
Appellant: BICHITRANANDA BEHERA; Respondent(s): STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No. 6664 of 2023) / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against the High Court Judgment and Order Dated 18.01.2017 in FAO No.497 of 2008
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Delay and Laches, Acquiescence, Approval of Appointment, Grant in Aid, De Facto Doctrine
Service Law Administrative Law Education Law Constitutional Law Delay and Laches Acquiescence Approval of Appointment Grant in Aid +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BICHITRANANDA BEHERA

Appellant

STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

Respondent(s)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No. 6664 of 2023) / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against the High Court Judgment and Order Dated 18.01.2017 in FAO No.497 of 2008

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant's appeal against the Tribunal directing approval of Respondent No.5's appointment and release of block grant
  2. 2 Whether Respondent No.5's claimed appointment w.e.f. 10.01.1993 was valid given the interim stay and the incumbent not having vacated the solitary PET post
  3. 3 Whether delay, laches and acquiescence bar Respondent No.5's claim after a long interregnum

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the appellant's appointment by the Managing Committee of 15.12.1992 and service from 14.05.1994 was not void ab initio, records and verification showed actual continuance on the post, Respondent No.5 delayed for over 12 years in asserting his claim and had effectively acquiesced (and was found to have worked in another school), and therefore his belated claim was barred by delay and laches; consequently the Tribunal and High Court orders in favour of Respondent No.5 were set aside and the appellant was entitled to continuance from 14.05.1994 with consequential benefits, while the State was directed under Article 142 to pay Respondent No.5 a lump-sum of INR 3,00,000 as...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgments of the High Court and the State Education Tribunal set aside
  • Appellant entitled to continuance on the post of PET in the School with service counted from 14.05.1994 and all consequential benefits to be determined as per records