The Government of Orissa in school and Mass Educational Department have issued a clarification that all pending applications under the scheme of an aided educational institution (fully aided under the direct control of government due to death of invalid on or after 1990) shall be scrutinized by the existing screening committee for consideration of appointment under the scheme held by Hon’ble Justice Biswanath Rath in the matters of Sarajini Jena v. State of Orisha and Ors. [ W.P.(C) No. 21320 of 2021].
The background of the case involves that the petitioner husband was working as a Graduate teacher. It was claimed that the employee died in harness leaving behind the petitioner as a widow and two minor children. After the untimely death, the family members receive a setback since the petitioner husband was the sole bread-earner of his family.
The premise is that husband of the petitioner was working in an aided educational institution by way of a block grant. Petitioner submitted an application for appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme but the application for rehabilitation assistance appointment at the instance of the petitioner was not accepted. The application was accepted only after the decision of the court through Ritanjali Giri @Paul, there is a creation of a right in favour of the person already involving block grant schools required to be treated like that of the employees in the aided educational institution. Section 3(b) of the Orissa Educational Act, 1969 defines the Aided Educational Institutions as “Private educational institution which is eligible to and is receiving grand-in-aid from the state government and includes an educational institution which has been notified by the state government to receive grant-in-aid”.
The Head Master of the school forwarded the application of the petitioner to the District Education Officer with all required documents. The school where the husband of the petitioner was serving come within the meaning of a fully aided educational institution.
The Hon’ble Court observed that no distinction between the aided and government institution considering the nature of duty discharged by person involves both categories. In considering the nature of the service involved, the petitioner being an employee in the aided institution should be treated at par with the employee of the government establishment. Also, once the benefit is granted to the particular person the same benefit should be extended to all such people standing on a similar footing. Therefore, the Writ petition stand is allowed and no costs.
Judgment Reviewed by Kaviya S.