The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11678 of 2021 Girish Chandra Bhukta …. Petitioner Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 13.02.2024 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. 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 to issue notice to the Opp. Parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why the order dated 18.02.2021 issued by the Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-7 shall not be quashed/set aside and after hearing the parties be pleased to quash/set aside the order of rejection dated 18.02.2021 under Annexure7. A further direction be issued to the Opp. // 2 // Parties to grant pension and pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.2019 as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in between Prem Singh and others Vrs State of U.P. and others dated 2.9.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2019 by counting his period of service rendered under work charge establishment from 2.9.1993 to 31.3.2019. A further direction be issued to release all the arrears in favour of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.2019 to till date within a date to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court; And may pass any other order(s), direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the present Petitioner was initially engaged in the year 1979 at Samal Barrage in Angul District as NMR employee. Thereafter he was brought over to the work charged establishment against of post of Time Keeper on 02.09.1993. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner was granted all service benefits at par with the regular employees including the benefit of different pay revisions. It is also contended that the Petitioner has also been extended the benefit of 7th pay revision as per Finance Department Resolution dated 07.09.2017 w.e.f. 01.01.2016. While continuing as such, the Petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation has retired from service on 31.03.2019 pursuant to the notice dated 29.03.2019 under Annexuer-3 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner was granted annual increment // 3 // as well as other benefits as is due and admissible to the regular employees. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in Suresh Chandra Sahoo v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.11158 of 2021, disposed of on 30.6.2022) submitted that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid order. He further contended that the order passed by this Court in Suresh Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra) has already been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.185 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.11.2023. He further contended that the Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the writ appeal by passing a detailed order thereby affirming the order passed by this Court on merits. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the case of the Petitioner be considered in the light of the law laid down in Suresh Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra). 6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, contended that in an identical case, i.e Gobardhan Prusty and others v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.21585 of 2014, decided on 28.06.2022), the State-Opposite Parties approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10145 of 2023. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide // 4 // order dated 05.04.2023 has been pleased to dismiss the matter on merits thereby affirming the order dated 28.06.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.21585 of 2014. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that the case of the Petitioner was considered by the Opposite Parties. He further contended that vide order dated 18.02.2021 under Annexure-7 to the writ petition, the case of the Petitioner has been rejected by the Opposite Party No.1. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that since the case of the Petitioner has already been considered and the same has been disposed of by a speaking order pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4808 of 2020 disposed of on 17.2.2020, there is no further scope to reexamine the case of the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid analysis of law as well as the factual aspect involved in the present writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by setting aside the impugned rejection order dated 18.02.2021 under Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to reconsider the // 5 // case of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in Suresh Chandra Sahoo’s case (supra) as well as in Gobardhan Prusty’s case (supra) and pass a speaking order disposing of the grievance of the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The final order so passed be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such decision. It is further made clear that in the event the Opposite Parties come to a conclusion that the Petitioner stands in similar footing with the above named Suresh Chandra Sahoo, then similar benefits as has been extended to Suresh Chandra Sahoo be also extended in favour of the Petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 15-Feb-2024 19:34:00