The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4045 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Dambarudhar Mohanta …. Petitioner Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Brahma, ASC Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing Counsel for A.G. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA _____________________________________________________ Date of hearing : 06.05.2025 | Date of Judgment: 16.05.2025 ______________________________________________________ A.K. Mohapatra, J. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel for Principal Accountant General of Odisha. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. Page 1 of 14 2. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased:- i) ii) To Admit this writ application. To direct the Opposite Parties more particularly Secretary, Principal Department of Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water for allotment of G.P.F. Account and governing their official status as a Pre-2005 appointee so as to draw the pensionary benefits under O.C.S. Pension Rule, 1992 keeping in view the related Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 2(r) and 10 of O.C.S. Pension Rule, 1992, and thereby the application of Article 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with regard to the binding precedent of the Judgment passed in Rem for consideration of past services as qualifying service for the purpose of Pension & Gratuity. And may pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Petitioner was appointed on 09.06.1992 as a Junior Engineer on temporary basis in the scale of pay of Rs.1400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600 per month with initial Page 2 of 14 D.A. as admissible to Government employees. Such appointment, as it appears from the appointment letter under Annexure-1, was subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment letter. He further submitted that the service book of the Petitioner reveals that the date of entry of the Petitioner into government service is on 10.06.1992 and the same bears the signature of the Additional Project Director, DRDA, Balasore. Further, the service book of the Petitioner under Annexure-2 clearly reveals that the same has been maintained properly by making regular entries from time to time. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, further referring to order No.3658/DRDA dated 08.09.2015 of the Collector, Balasore, submitted that an entry has been made in the service book to the effect that in pursuance to the aforesaid letter the service of the Petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer (Scheme & Estimaters), was posted against the existing vacant post of Junior Engineer in the Basta Block under the Odisha Diploma Engineer Service of the P.R. Department. Such entries have been made on 17.10.2015, under the signature of Additional Project Director, DRDA, Balasore. Page 3 of 14 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, further referring to the letter dated 19.01.2019 of the Finance Department, Government of Odisha, submitted that a decision was taken for allotment of GPF account number to the employees appointed on adhoc basis before 01.01.2005 and regularized after 01.01.2005 with retrospective effect from the date of their adhoc appointment. The letter dated 19.01.2019 further reveals that in case of a similarly situated employee, namely one Tushar Kumar Mukharjee, who had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.23073 of 2015, his period of service has been treated as regular employment even during his adhoc period. As such, his (Tushar Kumar Mukharjee) entry into service has been given a retrospective effect and shifted to 05.09.2003 which made him eligible to be covered under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF (Orissa) Rules, 1938. The said letter further reveals that in case of two other employees, namely Santosh Kumar Behera and Dusmanta Kumar Dhal, the concurrence of the Finance Department has not been given as there is no order by any competent Court in their favour. 6. Since the Petitioner was not assigned with GPF account number, being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, Page 4 of 14 the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a representation on 30.06.2021 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. However, no decision whatsoever has been taken on such representation of the Petitioner. 7. While this was the position, the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Odisha issued a resolution dated 20.08.2015 with regard to absorption of Junior Engineer (Scheme & Estimator) in Odisha Diploma Engineer’s Service of P.R. Department. The said resolution reveals that in pursuance of the decision taken in cabinet meeting held on 13.08.2015 and keeping in view the resolution dated 26.12.2013 of the P.R. Department, Government of Odisha, a decision was taken to absorb the services of 303 numbers of Junior Engineers (Scheme & Estimator) against the existing vacant posts of Junior Engineers under the Odisha Diploma Engineer’s Service of P.R. Department. Such resolution further reveals that their regular service shall be reckoned from the date of their absorption in the Odisha Diploma Engineer Service Cadre of Panchayati Raj Department and on their absorption they will be placed below the existing Junior Engineers of the same cadre. The resolution dated 20.08.2015 has been issued by the P.R. Department with the Page 5 of 14 concurrence of the G.A. Department, Law Department and Finance Department, Government of Odisha. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture submitted that the name of the Petitioner finds place at Sl. No.14 of the Office Order No.13837 dated 20.08.2015. He further contended that this has also been reflected in the service book of the Petitioner under Annexure-2 which has been discussed in the preceding paragraph. 8. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is that although the service of the Petitioner has been regularized pursuant to the office order No.13837 dated 20.08.2015 along with similarly situated many other Junior Engineers, however, the Petitioner has not been granted a GPF account number. Although GPF account numbers have been granted in the case of similarly situated other employees whose names appear along with the Petitioner in office order dated 20.08.2015. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the documents filed along with I.A. No.7059 of 2025. On perusal of the documents annexed to the said I.A., it appears that GPF account number has been assigned in favour of Mr. Pravakar Sarangi, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16815 of 2022. He further submitted that similarly situated many other Junior Engineers Page 6 of 14 have been assigned with GPF account numbers, however, the Petitioner is not in a position to instantly provide such information. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has been discriminated against by the Opposite Parties by not assigning him the GPF account number. Accordingly, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, thereby challenging the illegalities on the discriminatory conduct of the Opposite Parties as has been indicated hereinabove. 9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand referred to the Para-wise comments of Opposite Party No.1 and submitted that although the Petitioner along with other similarly situated persons were appointed as Junior Engineers at DRDA Level and were posted at Block Level, their services were regulated under the DRDA Regulation Act, 1989. It has also been admitted in the Para-wise comment that they have been extended with all service benefits as is admissible to the regularly recruited employees of DRDA and not at par with the regular employees of the State Government till their absorption as regular JEs under the PR & DW Department vide resolution dated 20.08.2015 and the subsequent office order on the same date. Further, referring to the Page 7 of 14 Finance Department Letter dated 04.04.2007 and 18.07.2007, the learned counsel for the State contended that the Finance Department has clarified that the persons who are initially appointed in the Job Contract/Work Charged Establishment prior to 01.01.2005 and subsequently brought over to the regular establishment after 01.01.2005, are entitled to be covered under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and existing GPF (Orissa) Rules, 1938. 10. Since the Petitioner was neither appointed under the Job Contract/ Work Charged Establishment nor under aided educational institutions prior to 01.01.2005, his case does not come under the aforesaid clarificatory letters of the Finance Department. Learned counsel for the State further referred to the resolution dated 20.08.2015 to submit before this Court that such resolution clearly provides that the regular service shall be reckoned from the date of their absorption in the Odisha Diploma Engineer’s Service Cadre as provided in the said resolution. He further contended that considering the aforesaid facts the Petitioner was brought over to the regular establishment much after 01.01.2005, is entitled to come under the NPS and EPF Act rather than the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and GPF (Orissa) Page 8 of 14 Rules, 1938. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 11. Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Principal Accountant General of Odisha on the other hand contended that in view of the decision of the Finance Department, the Office of the Accountant General is bound by such decision of the Finance Department. He further submitted that since the decision to extend the benefits under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and GPF (Orissa) Rules, 1938 is a policy decision, the same falls within the exclusive domain of the State Authorities and that the Office of the Accountant General has no role in such matters. In such view of the matter, Mr. Patra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the writ petition against the Principal Accountant General is not maintainable. 12. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the factual background leading to the filing of the present writ petition and on a careful scrutiny of the documents annexed to the writ petition, this Court is of the view that there is no difference of Page 9 of 14 opinion between both sides with regard to the factual position of the present writ petition. It is not disputed by the parties that the Petitioner was initially engaged as a Junior Engineer on temporary basis by the DRDA pursuant to the order under Annexure-1 dated 09.06.1992. It is also not disputed that a service book was opened and the Petitioner was getting regular benefits at par with other DRDA employees. Further, pursuant to the decision vide resolution dated 20.08.2015 under Annexure-6 the service of the Petitioner was brought over to the regular establishment against Odisha Diploma Engineer Service Cadre and such order was also communicated vide office order dated 20.08.2015. 13. Perusal of the record further reveals that the case of the State-Opposite Parties is based on an argument that the Petitioner was brought over to the regular establishment only in the year 2015, i.e. much after the cut-off date 01.01.2005. Therefore, a ground has been taken by the State-Opposite Parties that the Petitioner is not entitled to be covered under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 as well as GPF (Orissa) Rules, 1938. Learned counsel for the Petitioner on the other hand contended that since the Petitioner has been appointed in the year 1992 and he has Page 10 of 14 been extended with benefits at par with the other regular government employees along with his service book being opened and his subsequent absorption in service against a regular vacant post relates back to the initial date of entry, the Opposite Parties have committed an error by concluding that the Petitioner was appointed after 01.01.2005, and as such, he is not covered under the aforesaid statutory Rules. 14. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties are trying to draw an artificial distinction between the employees who were engaged on Job Contract/ Work Charged Establishment basis and those who are appointed on temporary basis in different DRDAs within the State of Odisha. The Finance Department vide letters dated 04.04.2007 as well as 18.07.2007 permits extension of the benefits of both the Rules to the employees who were initially appointed under the Job Contract/ Work Charged Establishment basis prior to 01.01.2005 and subsequently they were brought over to the regular establishment. However, while considering the case of the Petitioner and the similarly situated persons who were engaged as Junior Engineers since 1992 and were discharging their duties on regular basis without any interruption, the State Opposite Parties have taken a different stand with regard to the Page 11 of 14 present Petitioner. Thus, it is alleged that such discrimination, created artificial classification of employees by the State Authorities, which clearly violates Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, similar benefits have also been extended in favour of Job Contract/ Work Charged Establishment engaged in aided educational institution prior to 01.01.2005. 15. On a careful analysis of the factual position, it appears that it is not in dispute that the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1992, i.e. prior to 01.01.2005 and a regular service book of the Petitioner was opened and he was getting regular service benefits as is evident from the service book under Annexure-2 to
Decision
the writ petition. Since the Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the Job Contract/ Work Charged Establishment appointed prior to 01.01.2005, the State-Opposite Parties should have adopted a similar standard while dealing with the cases of similar type of employees. On a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, and the manner in which the case of the Petitioner has been dealt with by the Opposite Parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner has clearly been discriminated against. Page 12 of 14 16. Moreover, the Petitioner has been working since 1992 uninterruptedly as a regular employee. Therefore, treating the Petitioner to be a regular employee only from the date of absorption in the year 2015 would be illegal and discriminatory. Similarly, it is found that similar benefits have also been extended in favour of another employee who had earlier approached this Court, namely one Pravakar Sarangi. On a close scrutiny, the order of absorption under Annexure-6 dated 20.08.2015 reveals that the name of the above named Pravakar Sarangi finds place in the said order. Thus, there is no dispute that he stands in a similar footing with the present Petitioner. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is of the view that allotting GPF account number in favour of the above named Pravakar Sarangi and denying the same to the present Petitioner is highly illegal and discriminatory. 17. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the facts as well as the legal position, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the Petitioner has been discriminated against. Thus, the impugned order denying the prayer of the Petitioner for allotting the GPF account number is held to be illegal. The Writ Petition, is therefore allowed. Further, while allowing the writ Page 13 of 14 petition, this Court directs the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in view the aforesaid observations made herein by this Court as well as the case of Mr. Pravakar Sarangi, Junior Engineer. In the event it is found that the Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the above named Pravakar Sarangi, then the Opposite Parties shall do well to allot the GPF account number in favour of the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this judgment. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to cost. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 16th May, 2025/ S.K. Rout, Jr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 17-May-2025 09:20:46 Page 14 of 14