WP(C) No.6812 of 2017 ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK WP(C) No.6812 of 2017 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. *** Dr. Abani Kumar Mohapatra … Petitioner. -VERSUS- State of Odisha & Another … Opposite Parties. Counsel appeared for the parties: For the Petitioner : Mr. J.R. Dash, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel. (For the State) P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA WP(C) No.6812 of 2017 Date of Hearing : 18.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 31.03.2026 JUDGMENT ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.— 1. This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing Annexures-1 and 2. 2. The factual backgrounds of this Writ Petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing the same is that, the petitioner joined as a Lecturer on dated 30.11.1983 in the Department of Industrial Relation and Labour Welfare in Kotpad College in the backward District of Koraput. As per Notification No.VE/G.5/82, 11131/EYS 17.03.1983 of the Government, the criteria for releasing the Grant-in-Aid is under the Slab 5, 7 & 9 years, but in backward areas the slab is 3, 5 & 7 years. As the petitioner had joined on 30.11.1983 in Kotpad College of a backward District of Koraput, for which, on the condition of temporary concurrence to the opening of the subject in which the petitioner was the lecturer and in view of WP(C) No.6812 of 2017 the above notification dated 17.03.1983, the petitioner was eligible for 1/3rd grant-in-aid after completion of 3 years since 31.11.1985 i.e. since 30.11.1988. According to law, the eligibility of a lecturer like the petitioner to receive UGC Scale, the cut-off date is 01.04.1989, because, who will have sanctioned with Grant-in-Aid after 01.04.1989, he will not be entitled to receive UGC Scale. On the basis of the aforesaid circular dated 17.03.1983, the Opp. Party No.2 as per order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990 had allowed the petitioner to receive 1/3rd grant-in-aid (GIA) since 30.11.1988 on the basis of his joining on dated 30.11.1983. In view of the aforesaid order, when the petitioner was allowed to get 1/3rd GIA since 30.11.1988, then, he (petitioner) was eligible to get UGC scale on the basis of his eligibility to get grant-in-aid w.e.f 30.11.1988, which is prior to 01.04.1989, but, he was not provided with the same, for which, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.3721 of 2012 against the Government and the said Writ Petition of the petitioner was disposed of on dated 01.03.2012 directing the Director, Higher WP(C) No.6812 of 2017 Education, Odisha (Opp. Party No.2) on behalf of the Government (Opp. Party No.1) for consideration of his representation about the same. When such direction of this Court was not complied with, then, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition vide CONTC No.1907 of 2012, in which an order for personal appearance of the Director (Opp. Party No.2) was passed. For which, the Order for grant-in-aid given earlier to the petitioner by the said Opp. Party No.2, as per Order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990, (to which, the petitioner was receiving since last 25 years) was partially modified by the Opp. Party No.2 as per Annexures-1 and 2 and he (petitioner) was allowed to receive 1/3rd GIA w.e.f. 30.11.1990 instead of 1/3rd GIA since 30.11.1988 and clarified in that Annexures 1 & 2 that, the petitioner is entitled to receive 2/3rd GIA w.e.f. 30.11.1992 and full w.e.f. 30.11.1994. 3. The petitioner challenged to the above Annexures-1 and 2 by filing this Writ Petition against the Opp. Parties praying for quashing that Annexures-1 and 2 on the ground that, when as per the own notification of the Government vide WP(C) No.6812 of 2017 Notification No.VE/G.5/82, 11131/EYS 17.03.1983, the petitioner was entitled to get 1/3rd grant-in-aid under the slab of 3, 5 & 7 years respectively on the basis of his joining on 30.11.1983 as per the order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990 passed by the Opp. Parties and when he (petitioner) was receiving the same continuously for more than 25 years, then, the same Opp. Parties should not have recalled their Order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990 after 25 years in the garb of partial modification. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Annexures 1 and 2. 4. The Opp. Party No.2 filed its counter objecting to the case of the petitioner taking its stand that, the petitioner was granted 1/3rd GIA w.e.f. 30.11.1988 taking into account his date of joining i.e. 30.11.1983 w.e.f. 30.11.1990. As the temporary concurrence for the session 1983-84 and 1984-85 is not required to be computed for the purpose of grant-in-aid, for which, the petitioner is eligible for G.I.A w.e.f. 30.11.1990, but not w.e.f. 30.11.1988. Therefore, modification of the G.I.A. of the petitioner as per Annexures-1 and 2 are neither WP(C) No.6812 of 2017 unreasonable nor illegal. So, the question of interfering with the same does not arise. 5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 6. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, Kotpad College is situated in backward Koraput District of Odisha. The petitioner had joined a lecturer in the Department of Industrial Relation and Labour Welfare in the said college on dated 30.11.1983. On the basis of the Letter No.VE/G.5/82, 11131/EYS 17.03.1983 and as per Order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990, the Opp. Parties had passed order allowing the petitioner to receive 1/3rd GIA w.e.f. 30.11.1988 and accordingly, on the basis of such Order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990, the petitioner was receiving the G.I.A continuously. At the time of disposal of the earlier WP(C) No.3721 of 2012 of the petitioner on dated 01.03.2012, none of the Opp. Parties including the Opp. Party No.2 had raised objection that, the petitioner was not eligible to receive 1/3rd G.I.A. w.e.f. 30.11.1988 as per Order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990. WP(C) No.6812 of 2017 During the pendency of the CONTC No.1907 of 2012, surprisingly, the Opp. Opp. Party No.2 modified his earlier order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990 through the impugned Orders dated 27.03.2017 and 29.03.2017 vide Annexures-1 and 2 respectively expressing indirectly that, his earlier order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990 passed by the said Opp. Party No.2 allowing the petitioner to get 1/3rd G.I.A w.e.f. 30.11.1988 was not legal. 7. The above conduct of the Opp. Parties including the Opp. Party No.2 recalling their earlier Order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990 through Annexures-1 and 2 after 26 years, 7 months and 12 days expressing that, the said Order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990 was not legal, cannot be sustainable under law. Because, it is very fundamental in law that, the Government and its Officers are the model litigants. All fairness is to be expected from them (Opp. Parties), as the Government is the parents of all citizens including the petitioner. WP(C) No.6812 of 2017 When as per Order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990, the Opp. Parties including the Opp. Party No.2 had allowed the petitioner to receive 1/3rd G.I.A. w.e.f. 30.11.1988, then, at this juncture, the same Opp. Parties including Opp. Party No.2 should not have recalled the said order indirectly through Annexures 1 and 2 after 26 years 7 months and 12 days expressing that, the earlier order vide Order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990 issued/passed by him (Opp. Party No.2) in favour of the petitioner was not legal and correct. 8. It is the settled propositions of law that, when a right is accrued in favour of a person like the petitioner by the order of the Court or Officer, the said accrued Right cannot be recalled/modified by the same Authority or Court expressing that, the order issued earlier was wrong. Because, no one like the Opp. Parties can be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong on the principle of law that, one, who approbate, cannot reprobate the same. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions: WP(C) No.6812 of 2017 I. In a case between State of Orissa & Others Vs. Mangalam Timber Products Limited reported in 2003 (9) SCALE 578 that, State cannot take advantage of his own omission or fault. II. In a case between G. Vikram Kumar Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and Ors.reported 2023 (3) CCC 84 (SC) that, no one can be permitted to get the benefit of his own wrong. III. In a case between Dina Nath Pandey & Others Vs. Adya Pandey reported in (2017) (Supp.) Civ.C.C 307 (Delhi) that, no one can take benefit of his own wrong. IV. In a case between Sandip Routray Vs. Airport authority of India & another reported 2010 (Supp.-I) OLR — 707 that, a wrong doer is not entitled to take advantage of his own wrong. (Para - 11) V. In a case between Salem Muslim Burial Ground Protection Committee Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported 2023 (2) CCC 215 that, law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate, as no party can accept and reject the same instrument. VI. In a case between Dr. (Smt.) Pranaya Ballari Mohanty Vs. Utkal University and Others reported in 2014 (I) OLR 226 that, the action taken by the University after lapse of 20 years of the publication of the result in favour of the petitioner, cancellation of the same is hit by the principle of estoppel. WP(C) No.6812 of 2017 VII. In a case between M/s. Shree Shyam Roller and Flour Mill (P) Ltd. Vs. OMBUDSMAN-I and Others reported in 2012 (II) OLR 835 that, one who approbates cannot reprobate “qui approbate non reprobate”. 9. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioner was allowed by the Opp. Parties through their Letter/Order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990 to receive 1/3rd G.I.A. w.e.f. 30.11.1988 and when on the basis of the said Letter/Order, the right in favour of the petitioner had accrued and on the basis of such order of the Opp. Party No.2, the petitioner was getting salary and promotion, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, after 26 years 7 months 12 days, the Opp. Parties through Letters vide Annexures 1 and 2 should not have recalled the Order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990 issued/passed in favour of the petitioner in the garb of partial modification. Therefore, the said Annexures-1 and 2 issued/passed by the Opp. Party No.2 on behalf of the Opp. Party No.1 for partial modification of Order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990 WP(C) No.6812 of 2017 issued/passed in favour of the petitioner cannot be sustainable under law. For which, the said Annexures-1 and 2 issued/passed by the Opp. Party No.2 are liable to be quashed. 10. As such, there is merit in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed. 11. In result, this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.03.2017 & 29.03.2017 vide Annexures-1 and 2 issued by the Opp. Party No.2 on behalf of the Opp. Party No.1 are quashed. 12. Due to the quashing of the Annexures-1 and 2, the Opp. Parties are directed to provide the benefits of G.I.A to the petitioners reviving his scale of pay, to which, he (petitioner) is entitled for, on the basis of the earlier order No.26278 dated 03.05.1990 as per Letter No.VE/G.5/82, 11131/EYS 17.03.1983 along with its consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this Judgment. WP(C) No.6812 of 2017 13. Registry is directed to communicate this Judgment to the Opp. Party No.2 immediately. 14. As such, this Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. (ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 31 .03. 2026// Rati Ranjan Nayak Sr. Stenographer