JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Date of hearing
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.12522 of 2021 In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Premananda Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus- …. Opposite Parties 1. State of Odisha 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Odisha 3. Chief Construction Engineer 4. Executive Engineer, Baitarani Division For Petitioner : Mr. S.B Jena, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.N. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of hearing : 10.02.2025 Date of judgment : 10.02.2025 V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Legal Reasoning
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 17328 of 2019, which was disposed of by order dated 01.10.2019, directing the Petitioner to pursue his representation. In his representation the Petitioner had relied on similar benefits which was granted to one Narsu Pradhan passed in O.A No.1189(C) of 2006 by order dated 11.06.2009. 10. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the said order relating to Narsu Pradhan was assailed before this Court in W.P(C) No.5377 of 2010 whereby the order passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal was affirmed and assailing the same the Hon’ble Apex Court was moved by the State in SLP(Civil) CC No.22498 of 2012. For convenience of ready reference the operative portion of the order of Narsu Pradhan passed by the tribunal is extracted hereunder: “xxx xxx xxx Considering all aspects the aforesaid decision is made for "ipso lacto" applicable to this case as the applicant is similarly placed. The respondents are directed to regularize the applicant against available post on completion of five years of service in the work charged establishment and fix his pay allowing him notional increment as due and then pay him pensionary dues taking his notional increments into account as decided in the cases referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant. This task be completed within a period of six months.
Arguments
learned counsel for the State. 2. The Petitioner, who was working as a Mate under the work charged establishment in the office of the Executive Engineer, Agarpada Irrigation Circle, Page 1 of 8 assails the order at Annexure-9 rejecting his prayer for regularization and seeks a direction for such regularization with effect from the date the Petitioner completed five years in work charged establishment with all consequential benefits, inter alia, on the ground that, though such benefit of regularization have been extended to persons similarly circumstanced, he has been discriminated. 3. The Petitioner joined as NMR in Northern Irrigation Circle under the Administrative Control of O.P No.4 on 04.01.1979 as a Mate (Annexure-1). The name of the Petitioner appears at serial No.3 of the said Annexure. 4. Thereafter, he was brought over to the Work Charge Establishment with effect from 01.03.2009 as per order at Annexure-2 and his service condition was directed to be governed by the Orissa Work-charged Employees (Appointment and condition of service) instruction, 1974. 5. The name of the Petitioner in the list of NMR persons brought over to the Work-charged establishment in terms of the said order appears at serial No.34. For convenience of reference the table containing the name of the Petitioner which also indicates the date of engagement as NMR as 04.01.1978 as a “Mate” is extracted hereunder: Page 2 of 8 6. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that though he has completed five years service in work charged establishment, his services are not being regularized for which he is deprived of consequential retiral benefits. It is his further submission that the services of person similarly circumstanced and even juniors who have brought to the work charged establishment after the Petitioner, have been regularized, whereas the Petitioner is being discriminated. 7. It is apt to note here that the Petitioner retired as Mate on 31.01.2020. 8. It is pertinent to mention that there is no dispute related to the factual aspect referred to hereinabove regarding the date of joining of the Petitioner, in the Work-charged establishment as well as date of retirement. Page 3 of 8 9. Ventilating his claim, the Petitioner had earlier
Decision
With these orders, the O.A. is disposed of. Page 4 of 8 xxx xxx xxx " 11. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that notwithstanding the aforementioned order passed in the case of Narsu Pradhan affirmed by Apex Court, his claim notwithstanding the earlier direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.17328 of 2019, disposed of order dated 01.10.2019, was rejected by the impugned order at Annexure-9 vide order dated 25.02.2021. 12. He draws the attention of this Court to the recital in the said impugned order that since the Petitioner was not a party to the cases in which similar benefits have been granted, he cannot claim the same as a matter of right. 13. Controverting such stand which was reiterated in the counter, the Petitioner submitted a rejoinder wherein several other cases in which similar benefits have been granted and affirmed by the Apex Court have been delineated. Such stand of the Petitioner is uncontroverted. 14. As noted above, there is no dispute that the Petitioner joined on 04.01.1978 as a NMR and brought over to the Work charged Establishment on 01.03.2009. 15. Referring to the Resolution of the Government of Odisha in Finance Department dated 15.05.1997, it is claimed that on completion of 10 years the Petitioner ought to have been brought over to the regular establishment, since admittedly the Petitioner Page 5 of 8 has joined as NMR in the year 1978, in terms of the above resolution. Be that as it may, the Petitioner has based his prayer claiming parity with one Narsu Pradhan. 16. Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer and submits that the Petitioner’s case does not merit consideration and it is also stated that the Petitioner is also getting Pension from EPFO regularly since his retirement from 01.02.2020 and the Petitioner has already been paid an amount of Rs.1,11,000/- only as retrial benefit after his retirement vide this Division Office Bill No.262, dated 19.03.2021. 17. The assertion in this regard in paragraph-10 and 11 of the counter are extracted hereunder: “xxx xxx xxx 10. That in reply to the averments made in paragraphs-13 & 14 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner has retired w.e.f 31.01.2020. The criteria of completion of five years continue service for absorption to regular (wages) estt. have been changed to 10 years of service vide F.D resolution dated.15.05.1997. The fact has also been reflected in Para-9 of this PWC. The petitioner has also been paid an amount of Rs.1,11,000/- (Rupees One lakh eleven thousand) only as retrial benefit after his retirement vide this Division Office Bil] No-262 dt-19.03.2021. But the petitioner has submitted in this Para that he has not been paid any retirement benefit which is not at all correct as well as misconceived so as to misguide the Hon’ble Court. That, the petitioner is also getting pension from EPFO regularly since his retirement from 01.02.2020. Page 6 of 8 11. That as regards the averments made in paragraph- 15 to 20 of the writ petition are matters on record. Hence the deponent has no comment to offer. xxx xxx xxx” And the response of the Petitioner in the 18. rejoinder in paragraph-10 and 11 is also culled out as under for convenience of ready reference. “xxx xxx xxx That as regards the averments made in para 10 of the writ petition it is submitted here that the petitioner has fulfilled all the criteria i.e. 10 years of service under work charged establishment and ‘He is brought over to regular establishment and he is to get pension after retirement and for that the petitioner has mentioned in the writ petition that he has not been paid any retirement benefit which he is entitled to get after brought over to regular establishment. 11. That as regards the averments made in para 11 of the writ petition it is submitted here that the deponent has no comments to offer in that regard. xxx xxx xxx” 19. Considering the rival submission that there is no dispute that the Petitioner joined as NMR on 04.01.1978 and was admittedly brought over to the Work Charge Establishment with effect from 01.03.2009 and keeping in view the order in O.A No.1189(C) of 2006, in case of Narsu Pradhan which was unsuccessfully assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5377 of 2010 and the Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) CC No.22498 of 2012 assailing the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010 same was dismissed by the Apex Court by order dated 07.01.2013 and since there is nothing on record to Page 7 of 8 controvert the submission of the Petitioner that he is similarly circumstanced with the said Narsu Pradhan, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order at Annexure-9 rejecting his prayer for regularization is liable to be quashed. 20. Accordingly the impugned order at Annexure-9 is quashed. Consequentially, it is directed that the Opposite Party shall fix his pay along with increment notionally till the date of his retirement for calculating his pensionary benefits at par with Narsu Pradhan. The pensionary emolument, as calculated, shall be disbursed after taking into account the amount which has already been paid to the Petitioner, as stated in the counter affidavit. 21. The exercise in this regard shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this Judgment. 22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 10th February, 2025/ Soumya Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Mar-2025 10:22:45 Page 8 of 8