Orisisa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISISA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Sep-2024 16:16:06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22035 of 2016 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Tribal Development Corporation of Odisha Limited and Anr. …. Petitioner(s) -versus- The Registrar, Odisha Cooperative Society and ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : :
Legal Reasoning
It is asserted that there is no dispute regarding the service period from 01.06.1973 to 30.06.1979, during which opposite party No. 2 served under the administrative control of the petitioner. Therefore, the direction to pay admissible gratuity for this period cannot be contested by the petitioner. (iii) It is further highlighted that there is a discrepancy in the retirement date claimed by opposite party no. 2, asserting that the correct retirement date is 31.03.2009, based on the date of birth in the service book of the opposite party no. 2. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and carefully reviewed the materials submitted before the Court, it is evident that the facts of the case are not in dispute. 6. The opposite party no. 2 was employed with TDCC from 01.06.1973 to 30.06.1979, and following its integration with LAMPS, he continued his service uninterrupted from 01.07.1979 until 01.07.1984. 7. Based on the circumstances presented, the Registrar, Cooperative Society issued the contested order dated 25.01.2014, instructing both the Managing Director of TDCC and the Managing Director of LAMPS to disburse the petitioner’s retirement benefits for the service he rendered during the specified period. Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISISA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Sep-2024 16:16:06 8. Terminal dues such as pension, gratuity, or leave encashment cannot be withheld in the absence of any statutory provisions authorizing such action. It is a constitutional and fundamental right of an employee to receive retirement benefits, provided there are no legal impediments. Every law is intended to further the ends of justice, not to be frustrated by mere technicalities. 9. In emphasizing the significance of pensionary benefits, the Supreme Court, in the case of State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair,1 asserted that pensions and gratuities are now treated as guaranteed rights for retired employees, not just optional benefits from the government. If there’s an unreasonable delay in paying them/ interest at the current market rate will be charged until the payment is made. The relevant excerpt is produced hereinbelow: “Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Govt. to its employees on their retirement but have become under the decision of this Court, valuable rights and property in in settlement and their hands and any culpable delay disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.” 10. In the present matter, the petitioner has diligently fulfilled his professional duties and is thus entitled to receive his pension and gratuity. However, the Respondent has unjustly withheld these entitlements from the petitioner, despite his having met all conditions for such benefits, and without any fault on his part. 11985 (1) SCC 429 Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISISA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Sep-2024 16:16:06 11. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies has issued a substantiated order clarifying the financial responsibilities of both parties concerning the payment of pension and other retirement benefits due to the petitioner as a result of his employment. 12. It is imperative to recognize that as a public official, the Respondent is obligated to exercise authority in a fair and just manner, refraining from any form of arbitrary or oppressive conduct. Such behavior, which causes undue hardship to an individual, particularly an employee of the public body, is unacceptable and constitutes an abuse of power. The principles of fairness and equity must guide the actions of public functionaries to ensure that their conduct remains within the bounds of justice and propriety. 13. To this effect, the Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta2 has held as following: “An Ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law ... A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it … Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous." 2AIR 1994 SC 787 Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISISA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Sep-2024 16:16:06 14. In view of the authoritative pronouncements cited above and the relevant facts iterated herein, it is unequivocally clear that the petitioner is legally obligated to disburse the retiral benefits to the opposite party. Yet, despite the clear directive from the Registrar Cooperative Society, the petitioner has brazenly and inexcusably delayed this disbursement, thereby depriving the opposite party of their rightful entitlements. Such conduct is both unjust and intolerable. V. CONCLUSION 15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed, and the petitioner is cautioned against engaging in frivolous and wasteful litigation that squanders the valuable time of this Court. 16. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 6th Sept. 2024/ Page 7 of 7
Arguments
Ms. Saday Laxmi Patnaik, Adv. Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-12.07.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -06.09.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition to challenge the order dated 25.01.2014, issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which directed Petitioner No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3 to pay retirement benefits to Opposite Party No. 2 for the periods from 01.06.1973 to 30.06.1979 and from 01.07.1979 to 01.07.1984. Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISISA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Sep-2024 16:16:06 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner no. 1 is the Tribal Development Corporation (TDCC) of Odisha Ltd., an undertaking of the State Government. (ii) The opposite party no. 2 was initially appointed as a shop assistant in a Fair Price Shop by TDCC and was later absorbed by LAMPS (Large Area Multi-Purpose Cooperative Societies) as part of an integration policy effective from 01.07.1979. (iii) The opposite party no. 2 was then relieved from service on 01.07.1984 by LAMPS. Despite being absorbed by LAMPS, opposite party no. 2 later attempted to rejoin TDCC, which was not accepted. (iv) After reaching retirement age, opposite party no. 2 filed multiple writ petitions seeking various service and retirement benefits. (v) The earlier Writ Petition W.P. (C) No. 1622 of 2012, was dismissed by this Court. A subsequent Writ Petition W.P. (C) No. 13288 of 2012 resulted in an order allowing opposite party no. 2 to file a representation for his gratuity and retirement benefits before the Registrar, Cooperative Society. (vi) Based on the representation of the opposite party no. 2, the Registrar Cooperative Society issued the impugned order dated 25.01.2014 directing the payment of retirement benefits. (vii) Aggrieved by the order of the Registrar, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition, challenging the order dated 25.01.2014 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, directing them (Petitioner No. 1 Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISISA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Sep-2024 16:16:06 and Opposite Party No. 3) to pay retirement benefits to opposite party no. 2 for the period from 01.06.1973 to 30.06.1979 and from 01.07.1979 to 01.07.1984. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioner submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking and does not consider the materials on record, including the fact that opposite party no. 2 was absorbed by LAMPS and relieved from service. (ii) He further submitted that the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies contradicts the previous decisions of this Court, which exonerated TDCC from any liabilities towards opposite party no. 2 after his absorption by LAMPS. (iii) The petitioner contended that the relationship between TDCC and the opposite party no. 2 ceased after his absorption by LAMPS on 01.07.1979, and therefore, they are not responsible for any retirement benefits. (iv) The petitioner acknowledged the delay in challenging the impugned order but requests the court to consider this delay in light of potential pecuniary loss to the government or its undertaking. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISISA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Sep-2024 16:16:06 (i) (ii) It is submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in law and should be dismissed in limine. The application involves disputed questions of fact, making it legally unsustainable.