The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.11312 of 2025 Dillip Kumar Jena ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Gopal Prasad Jena -versus- 1) The State Of Odisha 2) Chairman Cum Md, Osrtc, Bbsr 3) General Manager Osrtc, Bbsr ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Ms. B.Sahu, A.G.A. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 30.04.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is humbly therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application and issue RULE NISI calling upon the opposite party no 1 to show cause as to why the objection raised by the Opposite Party no 1 should not be ignored and Opposite Party No.3 should not be directed to comply other objections if any and final family pension in favour of mother of petitioner should not be sanctioned within a stipulated period as mother is petitioner is more than 76 years and is suffering from different ailments. And if the Opposite Party no 1 fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said rule may be made absolute and upon Page 1 of 6.
Legal Reasoning
hearing the parties through their counsel, this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to ignore /quash the objections raised by the Opposite Party No.1 and direct the Opposite Party No.3 to comply other objections if any and this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to release final family pension in favour of mother of petitioner within a stipulated period as mother of petitioner is more than 76 years and is suffering from different ailments. And be further pleased to pass such other order/orders, direction/directions and/or writ/writs as it deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the father of the present petitioner was initially appointed as Watchman on 04.12.1973 under the STS. While working as such he was again appointed as Cleaner on 25.01.1974 under the STS. Thereafter, w.e.f. 15.05.1974, the STS (State Transport Service) was converted to OSRTC. Accordingly the employees, who were working under Ex-STS, were treated as on deputation to OSRTC w.e.f. 15.05.1973. He further contended that the father of the petitioner while working as such finally retired from service on 31.07.2002. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that on 05.04.2003 the Govt. of Odisha issued a notification declaring Ex- STS employee to be on deputation in the OSRTC. Accordingly, they were treated as the government employees. While this was the position, the Commercial Transport Department Government of Odisha took a decision to grant pension in favour of the ex-STS employees working under deputation in OSRTC and who had been allotted EPF account subject to closure on such EPF account and refund of the EPF share to the EPF authority. He further contended that the EPF account of the petitioner was closed and the EPF dues of the employees share refunded by the EPF authority to the opposite party-State. The aforesaid context he also referred to the closure Page 2 of 6. certificate issue by the EPF authority under Annexure-5 to the writ application. While this was the position, the father of the petitioner died on 19.09.2007 without getting any kind of pensionary benefit, either final or provisional pension. Finally, w.e.f. 31.12.2016, the provisional pension was sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the petitioner by the State-Opposite Parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the meantime, on 14.08.2023, the OSRTC submitted the pension papers pertaining to the father of the present petitioner to the State Government for further processing. Finally, while scrutinising the pension papers the Commerce and Transport Department, Govt. of Odisha has raised certain objections with regard to the pension papers of the petitioner vide their letter dated 09.05.2024 under Annexure-6 to the writ application. On perusal of the letter dated 09.05.2024 it appears that an objection has been raised with regard to non-availability of the initial appointment letter of the father of the present petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not have a copy of the initial appointment letter of his father. However, the fact of the father of the petitioner’s initial appointment is evident from the entries made in the service book which is available with the state-authorities. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the opposite parties be directed to ignore the objection with regard to the unavailability of the initial appointment letter and process the claim on the basis of recording made in the service book of the present petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that no fault can be attributed to the authorities as is evident from the Page 3 of 6. pleadings made in the writ application. She further contended that the delay was on the part of the corporation while supplying the pension papers of the petitioner’s father. She further submitted that such pension papers were received as late as the year 2023 by the State authorities. After which, while processing the claim of the petitioner deficiencies were found in such pension papers and the same has been intimated to the competent authority for removal. Since no action has been taken to remove such deficiencies/objections. No further action has been taken on the claim of the petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the present writ application is premature and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the pleadings made in the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto, this Court observed that the claim of the petitioner has been objected to by virtue of the letter of the Government dated 09.05.2024, under Annexure-6 to the writ application. On perusal of the record it appears that under objection No.1 it has been admitted that the petitioner’s father was initially appointment as Watchman on 03.12.1973 pursuant to which he joined on service on 04.12.1973 and such fact is evident from page-5 of Service Book Volume-I. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner joined as a Cleaner on 27.01.1974. Such fact has also been recorded in service book. However, an objection has been raised by the State on the ground that in order to ascertain the conditions of joining in service in different posts, the copies of the appointment letter of the petitioner’s father dated 04.12.1973 and 25.01.1974 are required. On careful Page 4 of 6. analysis of the aforesaid objection, this Court observes that asking the legal heirs of the retired employee, who has died in the meantime, to furnish a copy of the appointment letter which was received several decades ago, would be highly unfair. Moreover, the fact with regard to joining of the petitioner’s father is evident from the entries made in his service book which is available with the authorities. Further, this Court observes that in the event the appointment letter is not available, the authorities can always rely upon reliable documents, like service book of the petitioner’s father, which is available with the petitioner. Moreover, the relevant information which are required for the purpose of processing the claim of the father of the petitioner is also available in the service book. With regard to the objection Nos.2, 3 and 4, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no objection to such deficiencies pointed out by the Opposite Parties and the same can be complied with by the petitioner in course of processing of his father’s claim. Therefore, this Court is of the view that withholding the pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the petitioner’s father, solely on the ground that the initial appointment letter of the petitioner’s father was not produced before the authorities, is highly unfair and arbitrary. 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual position of the present case, and keeping in view the legal position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.3 i.e. The G.M.,OSRTC, Khordha to produce the copies of the appointment letter of the petitioner, if such letters are available with him, within a period of four weeks before the Opposite Party No.1. If such letters are not available with Page 5 of 6. the Opposite Party No.3, then the Opposite Party No.1 shall process the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the entries made in the service book which is available with the opposite party No.1. It is further directed that claim of the petitioner be processed within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order by following the aforesaid direction. It is further directed that in the event the Opposite Parties come to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to such pensionary benefits, then necessary steps be taken for sanction and disbursal of such pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such decision. The decisions so taken by the Opposite Parties be communicated to the petitioner forthwith from time to time. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
Decision
application stands disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-May-2025 10:29:29