The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7019 of 2022 Pandaba Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr.P.C. Das, ASC for State CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 04.04.2022 1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. The writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner praying for a direction to the Opposite Parties to implement the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal dated 22.02.2011 in O.A. No.555(c) /2000, affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.22688/2011, decided on 01.08.2019 as by the Apex Court in SLP(c) Diary No.5782/2020, decided on 19.05.2020 and thereby granting all such benefits including continuity of service from 31.12.1999, i.e. the regular appointment as has been given to Prasanna Kumar Rath and Keshab Ku. Nayak under Annexure-6, pursuant to the order in O.A. No.555(c) of 2000 taking into consideration the decision of the State of Punjab vrs. Harbanslal in SLP(c) No.23578 of 2012 and judgment dtd.26.8.2020 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3984 of 2010 in Sukumaran vs. State of Kerala and others with all consequential benefits. Page 1 of 5 // 2 // 3. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the Petitioner is a Class-IV employee working as Khalasi under regular Estt. of Executive Engineer, Harabhangi Irrigation Division, Adava in the district of Gajapati. After rendering service as NMR basis, he was regularized in service as Khalasi against the existing vacancy on 31.12.1999, On 28.1.2000, the Superintending Engineer, Rayagada Irrigation Circle issued an order cancelling the appointment order of the Petitioner for the post of Khalasi without any show-cause notice and following the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved by the said order, Petitioner moved the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.555(c)/2020, who vide orer dated 22.2.2011 quashed the impugned order under Anenxure-2 and directed for counting his service continuing for regularization and pension. Even though the order of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Apex Court, but till date Petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate dues. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Opposite Party-Authority ought to have considered the grievance of the Petitioner and Petitioner should have been granted pensionary benefit accordingly. 5. Heard learned counsel for both sides. Perused the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Abhaya Charan Mohanty vrs. 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 Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 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 vrs. State of Odisha allowed the writ petition and granted pensionary benefits as prayed for in that case. 6. Similarly, learned counsel for the Petitioner has also cited another order of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Nandi vrs. 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. 7. So far the case of one Narsu Pradhan 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 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 Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 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 a 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 stand contrary to the principle finally approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 8. Moreover, even accepting the argument for Opposite Parties that the DOWR resolution dated 7th September, 1995 provides that on completion of ten years of service in work charged establishment, a work charged employee is eligible to be brought over to regular establishment. In the present case, the Petitioner joined as Contingent Khalasi on 7.1.1985. It is not known as to what prevented the authorities to regularize the service of the Petitioner w.e.f. 7.1.1985 and accordingly should have paid all consequential service benefits to him. 9. Since the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, the question of his pensionary benefits by regularizing his service from the initial date of joining i.e. 07.01.1985 be considered expeditiously. Since the benefits have been granted to other similarly placed work charged employees by actually/notionally considering them as regular establishment employee and as such the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // pensionary benefits have been given to them, the same benefit needs to be extended to the Petitioner for the 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. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to grant similar benefits to the Petitioner as has been done in the case of Narusu Pradhan vide order dated 11th June, 2009 passed in O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Opposite Party No.4 along with certified copy of this order and all other relevant documents and records for the processing of his claim. The Opposite Party No.4 upon receipt of certified copy of this order shall calculate and pay the benefits payable to the Petitioner, particularly his pensionary benefits, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed. There shall no order as to cost. 12. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. U.K.Sahoo ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5