Orissa High Court
Umakanta Swain vs ) State Of Odisha ….. Opposite Parties on 6 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.3637 of 2025
Umakanta Swain ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Amiya Kumar Mohanty
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Engineer-in-chief, W.r. Dept., Represented By Adv. -
Odisha Ms. B.Sahu, A.G.A.
3) S.e., Prachi Division, Bbsr
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 06.02.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner has filed the above noted writ application with a
prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to regularize him in service for a
day prior to his superannuation notionally and grant pension and
pensionary benefits under the old rule in the light of the decision in
the case of State of Odisha vs. Pitambar Sahoo, W.P.(C) No.24041
of 2017 (decided on 20.12.2017), which has been affirmed in SLP(C)
Diary No.30806 of 2018 and Chandra Nandi vs. State of Odisha
and others, W.P.(C) No.19950 of 2011 (decided on 03.02.2021) and
Premananda Tripathy vs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.27950 of
2019 (decided on 03.02.2021) and Narusu Pradhan, SLP No.22498
Page 1 of 6.
of 2012, State of Orissa and others vs. Jyostna Rani Pattanaik and
others, W.P.(C) No.1534 of 2008, State of Orissa vs. Pitambar
Mohapatra, W.P.(C) No.13483 of 2012 and State of Orissa vs.
Radheshyam Mohanta, W.P.(C) No.12377 of 2009, which has been
affirmed in SLP(C) No.36038 of 2020 as well as the benefits given to
similar persons.
4. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the Petitioner had initially
joined on 01.10.1981 as NMR basis under the Opposite Parties as
Watchman. He was appointed as worked charged establishment
w.e.f. 02.09.1993 as per order No.2970 dtd.08.06.2001. He continued
in the worked charged establishment as Junior Painter till his
retirement.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite
Parties should have kept in mind the Finance Department Resolution
and the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court while rejecting the
representation of the Petitioner and should have also taken into
consideration the length of service rendered by the Petitioner in the
establishment being a work charged employee rendering continuous
service.
6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that learned Tribunal in O.A.No.70(B) of 1997 by order dated
03.05.1999 analyzing various points of law directed the State
Government to regularize the applicant in the establishment from the
time he completed five years of continuous service in work charged
establishment and the period from that time till the date of retirement
be counted while calculating the pension and a direction be issued to
grant pensionary benefit to the employees. He further submits that
the Government challenging the order of the learned Tribunal under
Page 2 of 6.
Annexure-6 approached this Court by filing OJC No.13552 of 1999
and this Court by order dated 01.05.2001 referring the judgment
rendered in OJC No.1162 of 1999 (State of Orissa vs. Jhuma Parida
and others) and OJC No.11028 of 1999 (State of Orissa vs.
Sudarsan Sahoo and others) confirmed the order passed by the
learned Tribunal and dismissed the writ application. After dismissal
of the writ application, the Government has brought the employee
into regular establishment for the purpose of granting pensoinary
benefit.
7. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that the Opposite Parties ought to have considered the ratio decided
in the judgments (supra) while rejecting the representation of the
Petitioner and should have granted pensionary benefit in favour of
the Petitioner.
8. The Opposite Parties have not filed a counter affidavit denying
all the allegations made by the Petitioner in the Petition. It is stated
by learned Additional Government Advocate referring to the counter
affidavit that the counter that the claim of the Petitioner is a stale
claim. Further it is submitted that the cases cited by the Petitioner are
different from the grievance of the Petitioner and the principle
decided in the said case are not at all applicable to the case of the
present Petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the State that the Opposite Parties have given due care and
caution towards implementation of orders passed by this Court as
well as the Apex Court and the guidelines and circulars issued by the
State Government from time to time.
9. Heard learned counsel for both sides. Perused the materials
available on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the
Page 3 of 6.
judgment of this Court in the case of Abhaya Charan Mohanty vs.
State of Odisha, WPC(OAC) No.3494 of 2013 disposed of on 14th
July, 2021. In the said case, the Petitioner, who was a work-charged
employee had claimed the pensionary benefits after his retirement
with retrospective effect. This Court relying upon the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.21498 of 2012
thereby dismissing the State Government’s Appeal and confirming
the order dated 19th December, 2011 of this Court passed in W.P.(C)
No.5377 of 2010 in the case of one Narusu Pradhan vs. State of
Odisha allowed the writ petition and granted pensionary benefits as
prayed for in that case.
10. Similarly, learned counsel for the Petitioner has also cited
another order of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Chandra Nandi vs. State of Odisha and others: reported in 2014(I)
OLR 734. In the said reported case, this Court had given a direction
to notionally regularize service of the Petitioner prior to his
superannuation from service and accordingly, calculated the
Petitioner’s entitlement including the pensionary benefits.
11. So far the case of Narsu Pradhan (supra) is concerned and
which has been referred to by this Court in Abhaya Charan Mohanty
(supra), said Narusu Pradhan had filed O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006
praying for retiral benefits. Learned Tribunal allowed the retiral
pensionary benefits in his favour vide order dated 11th June, 2009.
The order dated 19th June, 2009 was challenged by the State
Government before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010. This
Court dismissed the writ petition on 19th December, 2021 and
confirmed the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the
State Government preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme
Page 4 of 6.
Court of India bearing Civil Appeal No.22498 of 2012. The said
appeal was also dismissed on 7th January, 2013 by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India thereby confirming the orders passed by the
learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal as well as this Court. Since
the case of Narusu Pradhan is a case of work charged employee,
who had worked for more than five years in work charged
establishment had been allowed to receive pensionary benefits by
virtue of order passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
which was ultimately confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India, the principle laid down in that case has become the Law of the
land as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and is
binding on this court while deciding cases of similar nature.
Therefore, it is no more open to the State Government to take a stand
contrary to the principle finally approved by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India.
12. The only benefit the petitioner is entitled to get is his
pensionary benefits payable to the Petitioner and the same is required
to be considered in the present writ petition. Since the benefits have
been granted to other similarly placed work charged employees by
notionally considering them as regular establishment employee and
as such the pensionary benefits have been given to them, the same
benefit needs to be extended to the Petitioner for services rendered by
him under the State Government for several decades continuously
that too on payment of a paltry amount every month. The whole
objective of the pension scheme is to support an employee and his
family after retirement which is in recognition of his relentless
service to the Govt. and such benefits are provided under the Rules
on humanitarian considerations.
Page 5 of 6.
13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, further keeping in
view the factual background of the present case as well as legal
provisions, the present writ application is being disposed of at the
stage of admission by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh
representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting
documents as well the judgment relied upon including the case of
Narusu Pradhan vs. State of Odisha (O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006
decided on 11.06.2009, within three weeks. In such eventuality, the
Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the same keeping in
view the aforesaid judgment as well as the order passed by this Court
in Mukunda Behera vs. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C)
No.24742 of 2022 disposed of 28.09.2022. The representation shall
be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. In the event
it is found that the petitioner is entitled to stand in a similar footing,
with the petitioners in the aforesaid writ applications and is entitled
to the benefits as claimed in the present writ applications and in
absence of legal impediment, the Opposite Party shall do well to
calculate, sanction and disburse the pensionary benefits within a
period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order.
14. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Signature Not Verified Page 6 of 6.
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RUBI BEHERA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Odisha, Cuttack
Date: 10-Feb-2025 19:24:02
[ad_1]
Source link