| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/535951 |
| Subject | Service |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Decided On | Oct-29-2007 |
| Judge | P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ. |
| Reported in | 105(2008)CLT11 |
| Appellant | Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik |
| Respondent | State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati |
| Disposition | Petition allowed |
| Cases Referred | Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P. |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.</p><p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $args = array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535951/keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.</p><p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $args = array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535951/keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.</p><p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $args = array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535951/keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]order1. heard.2. this writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the opposite party members to implement the direction of the state education tribunal passed in appeal no. 11 of 2001 as per the judgment dated 05.05.2003. in paragraph-7 of that judgment it has been recorded by the learned presiding officer that:.order of the director of secondary education, orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the hon'ble high court of orissa for adjudication o.j.c. no. 14086/2001 filed by shri p.k. tripathy. therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of shri p.k. tripathy and the appellant is yet to be decided by hon'ble high court. but the admitted position of the law is that service.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.</p><p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $args = array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535951/keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]ORDERCode Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.</p><p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $args = array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535951/keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.', (int) 3 => '<p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1. Heard.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.</p><p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $args = array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535951/keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.', (int) 3 => '<p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.</p><p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $args = array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535951/keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.', (int) 3 => '<p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.</p><p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $args = array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535951/keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.', (int) 3 => '<p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.</p><p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $args = array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535951/keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.', (int) 3 => '<p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.</p><p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $args = array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535951/keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.', (int) 3 => '<p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.</p><p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $args = array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535951/keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.', (int) 3 => '<p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S O Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department - Citation 535951 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '535951', 'acts' => '', 'appealno' => '', 'appellant' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Keshab Chandra Garanaik S/O. Suresh Chandra Garanaik Vs. State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Education Department,', 'casenote' => ' - Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section 110A in the C.P.C., by 2002 Amendment Act, no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge of a High Court. A right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the non obstante clause. The legislative intention is thus very clear that the law enacted shall have full operation and there would be no impediment. It is well settled that the definition of judgment in Section 2(9) of C.P.C., is much wider and more liberal, Intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to Clause (a) to (w) of Order 43, Rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. Amended Section 100-A of the Code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie. Even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under Section 2(9) means a statement given by a Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Thus the contention that against an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 104 C.P.C., a further appeal lies to a Division Bench cannot be accepted. The newly incorporated Section 100A in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a Single Judge to a Division Bench notwithstanding anything contained in the Letters Patent. The Letters Patent which provides for further appeal to a Division Bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a Single Judge. It has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an Appeal to the High Court. It has not made any provision for filing appeal to a Division Bench against the judgment or decree or order of a Single Judge. No Letters Patent Appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a Special Act. Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002] & 104:[Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Writ Appeal Held, A Writ Appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, a writ appeal will lie. But, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a Single Judge in exercising powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Orissa', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2007-10-29', 'deposition' => 'Petition allowed', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => ' P.K. Tripathy and; R.N. Biswal, JJ.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.</p><p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.</p><p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.</p><p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.</p><p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.</p><p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.</p><p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '105(2008)CLT11', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Orissa Represented Through the Secretary to Government of Orissa in School and Mass Educati', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $args = array( (int) 0 => '535951', (int) 1 => 'keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/535951/keshab-chandra-garanaik-s-o-suresh-vs-represented-government' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. Heard.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. This Writ Petition has been filed with the prayer to issue direction to the Opposite Party members to implement the direction of the State Education Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 11 of 2001 as per the Judgment dated 05.05.2003. In paragraph-7 of that Judgment it has been recorded by the Learned Presiding Officer that:.order of the Director of Secondary Education, Orissa dtd. 18.6.2001 is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for adjudication O.J.C. No. 14086/2001 filed by Shri P.K. Tripathy. Therefore at this stage the order of termination cannot be set aside by this Tribunal for the simple reason that matter of termination of Shri P.K. Tripathy and the Appellant is yet to be decided by Hon'ble High Court. But the admitted position of the law is that service of the Appellant has been utilized by the Respondents. Therefore the Appellant is entitled to receive salary from 1.6.94 to 25.9.2001 from the state Government as per grant-in-aid principle as has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred earlier.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the Presiding Officer passed the consequential order for payment of the salary for the aforesaid period within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid direction of the Education Tribunal is yet to be complied with by the petitioner.', (int) 3 => '<p>Opposite Party Nos. 11 to 3 have not filed any counter.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Opposite Party No. 4 has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that it has submitted the Bill for sanction of fund from the grant-in-aid fold. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand states that, as per the instruction received by him, the stand of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is that the direction of the Tribunal is not in conformity with law, in as much as when two persons are claiming for the post, payment cannot be made from grant-in-aid fold until that dispute is settled. The aforesaid approach of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 is found to be in correct in as much as none of them has been vested with the authority or jurisdiction to decide the issue on direction for payment over and above the direction under Article 227 or the under Section 24-C of the of the State Education Tribunal. On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or the Appellate jurisdiction under Section 24-C of the Orissa Education Act, 1969 is vested with the High Court. When they do not state that they have challenged the aforesaid direction of the State Education Tribunal before appropriate forum or that they applied for review of the order of the Tribunal, therefore, they do not have the jurisdiction and authority to refuse to implement the direction of the Education Tribunal. Since the reasons assigned by Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 appears to be an illegal approach by the concerned authority, i.e., the Opposite Party members, therefore, following the ratio in the case of Shri Dillip Kumar Samal v. State of Orissa and Anr. W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007 of this Court, we direct the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the award of the State Education Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the same manner as has been decided in the above noted W.P.(C) No. 9729 of 2007.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.', (int) 6 => '<p>Requisites by registered post with AD be filed by the petitioner by 05.11.2007 to communicate this order to the Opposite Party members.<p>', (int) 7 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 8 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109