The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5575 of 2024 Dr. Deba Nandan Bhoy …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Purohit, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. T.K. Biswal, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 12.03.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore prayed that your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit this case, issue notice on the Opp. parties asking them to show cause as to why the petitioner has not been given his entitled inservice dues like salary with increments, revised pay scales of the last revisions, T.B.A., RACP and DACP etc. and on hearing the Opp. Parties, if they show no or inadequate reasons, then // 2 // issue a writ directing them to pay all the inservice dues till 31.1.2024 along with interest on the same @ 12% per annum from the date they were due till the date of actual payment and further direct the Opp. parties to pay the retiral dues i.e. pension, gratuity and commuted pension and the unutilized leave salary within a scheduled time frame; And, further direct for payment of cost and compensation for the mental torture which has been arisen for non-receipt of his legal entitlement throughout his service career only for the inaction of the Opp. parties; And/or pass any such other or further order(s)/direction(s) as deemed just and proper by your Lordships in the aforesaid circumstances of the case; And, allow this writ petition with cost.” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially appointed by the Opposite Party No.1 vide appointment letter dated 21.09.1986 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He further contended that the OPSC has given its concurrence to such appointment vide its letter dated 01.05.1991 under Annexure-2. Thereafter, the Petitioner continued in service. Finally, the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.01.2024. Since the Petitioner was not extended the retiral dues as well as the pensionary benefits, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties for grant of such benefits. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner by referring to the letter dated 16.10.2020 written by the Under Secretary to Government of Odisha, Labour and ESI // 3 // Department to the Director, ESI Scheme, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, submitted before this Court that the Government has asked the Director, ESI Scheme, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to extend the benefits in favour of the Petitioner as is due and admissible to him by condoning the interruption of service and as has been extended to the similarly situated employees by taking into consideration the entire adhoc period for calculation of pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after sitting over the matter for a long time, the Director of ESI Scheme wrote a letter to the Additional Secretary to Government, Labour & ESI Department, Odisha Bhubaneswar on 19.10.2023 under Annexure-9 requesting the Government to provide documents and necessary permission for processing claim of the Petitioner. In the meantime, being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner submitted a representation before the Opposite Party No.1 on 26.10.2023 under Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Finally, the Government vide office order dated 30.11.2023 under Annexure-11 to the writ petition clarified the position regarding condonation of the break in service between the adhoc appointment of the Petitioner and his regular appointment in exercise of the power conferred under Rule-36 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 with further direction to the Directorate to refer to the Odisha Pension Rules while processing the claim of the Petitioner. However, despite such clarification vide letter under Annexure-11 to the writ petition, no further steps have been taken by the Directorate for processing the claim of the // 4 // Petitioner and to regularize the break period. While the matter stood thus, pursuant to office order dated 19.12.2023 underAnnexure-12 to the writ petition, the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.01.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of his argument, submitted that the Petitioner is getting provisional pension of Rs.15,365/- at the moment, which is not adequate to sustain himself and his family. He also contended that the Petitioner had worked for 37 years under the Government and at the fag end of his carrier, he is being harassed by the Opposite Parties in getting his legitimate dues. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that on perusal of the record, it appears that the Government has passed necessary orders clarifying the position and the break period has been ordered to be regularized. However, the matter is pending before the Director, ESI Scheme. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 is not at fault. However, Opposite Party No.2 may be directed to take the consequential follow up action to process the claim of the Petitioner in accordance with law and the provision contained in the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties as well as the on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case and the materials on record, // 5 // this Court observes that the Government of Odisha has already clarified the position and passed necessary orders vide order dated 30.11.2023 under Annexure-11 to the writ petition. On close scrutiny of the order under Annexure-11, it appears that things have been clarified by the Government and there is no ambiguity as such in the said order. Furthermore, it is the Opposite Party No.2, who is to carry out the order passed by the Opposite Party No.1 while processing the claim of the present Petitioner. Since the order passed by the Government has not been processed by the Opposite Party No.2, this Court of the considered view that the delay has been caused due to inaction on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. 9. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to expedite the processing of claim of the Petitioner keeping in view the order passed by the Government under Annexure-11 as well as the provision contained in OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and steps, as is required under the law, be taken and the matter be finalized within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. The claim of the Petitioner shall be processed as has been directed hereinabove and the financial benefits as due and admissible to the Petitioner be sanctioned and disbursed within the stipulated period of time under intimation to the Petitioner. Further, the interest as is admissible under the provision of rules shall also be calculated and paid to the Petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time // 6 // period. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 17-Mar-2024 18:38:20