The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.8308 of 2024 Bamadeb Ojha ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Sudarshan Pradhan -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Commnr., Bbsr Municipal Corporation ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – D.Mohapatra, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 10.04.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite parties to sanction pensionary and other retrial benefits by treating the petitioner as a regular employee with retrospective effect after completion of five years of service under work charged establishment, i.e., from the year 1992 and further seeks direction to opposite parties to pay the arrear dues with interest. 3. Mr. S.Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similar benefit has been extended to one Narusu Pradhan, as stated in paragraph-14 of writ As such, the petitioner having stood in similar footing, he is entitled to grant all the benefits. 4. Mr. D.Mohapatra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State contended that the petitioner has already retired from service Page 1 of 4. and he was working as a Peon and he has been paid the benefit in terms of the Appendix-III OPWD Code, Vol-II, Page 2 of 4 i.e., Odisha Work charged employees (Appointment and Condition of Service) Instruction, 1974, therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, after going through the records it appears that the petitioner was appointed as Peon under opposite party no.2 and while working as such, he was appointed as a Peon under work charged establishment. The said appointment was extended from time to time and finally, the term was extended until further orders. After completion of some years, service book of the petitioner was 2 opened and during his service period he had been given the benefit of revision of pay as per different ORSP Rules. Apart from that he has also been allowed house rent allowance. Thereafter, the petitioner was continuing as Watchman and was granted annual increment from time to time and was also transferred to different divisions in the interest of the Government works during his service period like regular employees. In obedience to the direction of the apex Court, this Court and the Tribunal, the Government of Odisha in Finance Department introduced a guideline bearing Resolution No. 22764 dated 15.05.1997 to brought over the work charged/NMR/DLR personnel to the regular establishment, those who have appointed prior to 12.04.1993. Even though the petitioner fulfilled the criteria, his case was not considered, but the other similar employees have been considered. When the case of the petitioner was not considered to convert his service to regular establishment, he filed several representations before the opposite party no.1, but Page 2 of 4. no action has been taken. Finding no other alternative, he approached this Hon’ble Court. In the meantime he retired from service on 31.05.2023. 6. As it reveals from the record that one Narusu Pradhan, a similar circumstanced person like the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 1189 (C) of 2006 praying for retrial benefits. The Tribunal allowed the retrial pensionary benefits in his favour vide order dated 11.06.2009, which was challenged by the State before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5377 of 2010. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 19.12.2011 and confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter against the order passed by this Court, the State has preferred SLP in Civil Appeal No. 22498 of 2012, the same was also dismissed on 07.01.2013. The petitioner has made a specific pleading in paragraph-6.9 and 6.10, which reads as follows: “6.9. That the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal delivered in the case of Narasu Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa in O.A. No. 1184 (C) of 2012 which was allowed on 11.06.2009. In that case this Hon’ble Tribunal has held that the work charge employes are entitled to get pension and pensionary benefits. This said judgment of Narasu Pradhan was challenged in the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa by the State-respondent and the State-respondent lost there. Thereafter again the State Govt. preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP baring SLP No. 22498 of 2012. The SLP filed by the govt. was also dismissed on 07.01.2013.” 6.10. That after disposal of the case, the law became clear and thereafter the respondent passed the order for sanction of pension and pensionary benefit in favour of the said Narasu Pradhan retired, Electrician Gr.I (work Page 3 of 4. is attached charge) of Bhanjanagar Irrigation Division. The copy of the said to this as Annexure-3 dated 09.05.2013. As the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Hon’ble Tribunal, hence the applicant is entitled to get pension and pensionary benefit and there is no doubt in it. Besides the above named person, other work charge employees are also getting pension and the applicant is being harassed.” 7. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law the Opposite parties are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-4 to the writ application within a period of two months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. Further it is directed that in the event the Opposite Parties come to a conclusion that the petitioner stands in a similar footing like above named Narasu Pradhan, then the benefits extended to the above named Narasu Pradhan be also extended in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of taking such decision. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Parties be also communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4. Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Apr-2024 11:15:46