The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6902 of 2023 Sri Prasan Kumar Rout …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opp. Parties Mr. T.K. Pattnaik, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 14.03.2023 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-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 prayed, therefore, that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to; i) Admit and allow the writ petition and; ii) Direct to 5 the Opposite Party Nos.1 to absorb/regularize the service of the petitioner in regular establishment w.e.f. 01.06.1996 i.e. the date when the service of his juniors i.e. opposite party Nos.6 to 8 were regularized as has been regularized in favour of similarly placed employee under Annexure-10 series and 11 series within a stipulated period and; iii) Further be pleased to direct the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 to count the period of service from 01.06.1996 to till his retirement as regular service under regular establishment and grant pension and other retirement benefits as due admissible under old pension Rules i.e. OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 in // 2 // favour of the petitioner within a stipulated period of time; iv) And pass such other orders/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and bona-fide interest of justice.” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially engaged as NMR/DLR basis on 11.12.1977 and thereafter continued uninterruptedly. He further submitted that instead of regularizing the service of the Petitioner in regular establishment w.e.f. the date of regularization of service of Opposite Party No.6 to 8, who are admittedly juniors to the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.06.1996, the Petitioner was brought over to the work charged establishment under Annexure-7. He further contended that after rendering more than 40 years of service, he has retired from service as Mate (W/C) from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 28.02.2018. He also contended that since the Petitioner has retired as a Mate (W/C), he has not been extended any pensinoary benefits and other retiral dues. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner further contended that similar placed person had earlier approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar by filing O.A. Nos.984 of 2012 and 1047 of 2013 and the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.04.2015 disposed of the same. The order passed by the Tribunal was assailed before this Court by the State by filing W.P.(C) No.17556 of 2017 and a Division of this Court vide order dated 16.11.2019 dismissed the writ petition filed by the State. Thereafter, the State moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.(C) No.10293 of 2020. The said appeal has already been dismissed on the ground of delay vide order dated 19.11.2020. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Mayadhar Senapati v. State of Odisha and others has attained finality. Accordingly, the Petitioner before the Tribunal has already been // 3 // received the benefits as has been directed by the Tribunal indicating disbursal of such benefits have been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-11 Series. In the present case, the Petitioner claims with the above named Mayadhar Senapati and claims benefits which have been extended to the above named Mayadhar Senapati. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, objected to the prayer made in the writ petition on the ground that the Petitioner’s case is different than the case of above named Mayadhar Senapati. He further contended that the Petitioner was retrenched in the year 1995. Thereafter, he was reengaged. Therefore, there is a brake in his service and, as such, he cannot be compared with the above named Mayadhar Senapati. Accordingly, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and, as such, the same should be dismissed. 7. In reply to the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to Annexure-6 and submitted that the information provided by the Executive Engineer, Naimapara Irrigation Division vide letter dated 20.09.2010 reveals that the date of engagement of the Petitioner as DLR is 11.12.1977. He further referred to the order passed by the Labour Court under Annexure-1 and submitted that the Labour Court has given a specific finding that the termination of service of the Petitioner w.e.f. 1.11.1995 is neither legal nor justified. Accordingly, the Labour Court has directed for reinstatement of the Petitioner in service and a consolidated sum of Rs.3000/- has been awarded towards as back wages. Further, the order of the Labour Court dated 17.05.1995 has already been notified by the Government vide Notification dated 20th June, 2005. 8. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and // 4 // upon a careful consideration of the background of the present case and upon perusal of the materials placed before this Court, this Court disposes of the writ petition at the stage of admission with a direction the Petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation before the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 along with all supporting documents and the judgment he relies upon in support of his case within a period of three weeks from today. In the event such representation is filed, the same shall be considered by the Opposite Parties Nos.1 and 2 within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is directed to consider the representation of the Petitioner in accordance with law and keeping in view the order passed by the Tribunal confirmed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mayadhar Senapati’s case (supra). In the event it is found that the Petitioner stands on similar standing with the above named Mayadhar Senapati, then the benefit extended to the above named Mayadhar Senapati be also extended and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner within a period of one month from the date of taking such decision. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge