Color page for PDF.pmd - Orissa High Court

14
Court
News
JAGANNATH BARIK -V- SECRETARY, DEPT. OF SCHOOL & MASS EDN., BBSR & ORS.
W.P.(C ) NO.17561 OF 2006 (Dt.04.02.2011)
Service – Petitioner was serving as a Primary School Teacher from 24.07.1965 to 13.01.1986 –
Petitioner was selected in OAS and he was relieved from school on 13.01.1986 – He joined as Transport
Manager (Admn.) Jatani on 14.01.1986 and retired on 30.04.2007 – As per Rule 4(5) of the Orissa Aided
Educational Institution Employees Retirement Benefit Rules 1981 entitles a non-Govt. Primary School
Teacher to pension on closure of the College or School as the Case may be due to withdrawal of
recognition of the said College or school or other causes – The expression “other causes” was clarified
under 1998 amendment Rules – As per the above amendment a person absorbed in other service is also
entitled to get pensionary benefits – In the meantime Orissa Aided Educational Institution (Non-Govt.
Fully Aided Primary School Teachers) Retirement Benefit Rules 1986 came into force w.e.f. 01.04.1985
and the said Rule is applicable to the petitioner – Held, the petitioner is entitled to get the pensionary
benefits for the service rendered by him from Dt.24.07.1965 to 30.04.2007.
(Sanju Panda, J.)
DEEPAK PRADHAN -V- STATE OF ORISSA.
JCRLA NO.19 OF 2000 (Dt.09.2.2011)
PENAL CODE, 1860 – S.498-A & 302.
Conviction U/s. 488-A & 302 IPC challenged – No evidence on record to establish torture for dowry
soon before the death – No evidence to establish a case U/s.4 D.P.Act – There is neither any charge
nor any evidence to establish a case U/s.304-B IPC – Moreover the circumstances so established in
this case do not form a complete chain unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused-appellant
– Held, conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable under law.
(L.Mohapatra, J & S.K.Mishra, J.)
SAKILA MAJHI & ORS. -V- STATE OF ORISSA.
CRLA. NO.22 OF 2011 (Dt.9.2.2011)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – S.374 (2).
Appeal against conviction – Appellants in jail custody – Delay of 133 days in filing appeal –
Condonation of delay – State Counsel prayed to impose cost.
Right of appeal is a statutory as well as Constitutional right of a convict – A prisoner belongs to
handicapped class – The morbid cell which confines them to walls cut off them from the world outside
– To get legal remedies is beyond their physical and even financial reach – As they are in custody their
personal liberty is in jeopardy and if cost will be imposed to condone delay in filing appeal it will cause
double jeopardy to their personal liberty which is uncommon in criminal jurisprudence – Held, since the
petitioners are in jail custody and State has not taken any steps to provide legal assistance no costs
should be imposed on them.
(S. Panda, J.)
KASINATH SETHY-V- SANJUKTA SETHI & ORS.
RPFAM NO.37 OF 2010 (Dt.09.02.2011)
(A) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – S. 125 (3).
Maintenance allowed exparte – Non-payment of such maintenance without sufficient cause –
Sentencing a person to jail is a mode of enforcement – Purpose of sending him jail is not to wipe out
the liability but to obey the order and to make payment – Held, a sentence of jail will not absolve the
petitioner-husband from payment of maintenance amount to his wife.