Referring to the case of one Pradip Kumar Panigrahi v. State of Odisha and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10076 of 2025 1) Maheswar Maharana 2) Nakul Sahoo ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Tanmay Mishra -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Principal Secy. To Govt. Finance 3) The Engineer In Chief Civil 4) Chief Construction Engineer, Central R And B, Circle, Bbsr 5) Superintending Engineer, Bbsr R And B Division, Bbsr 6) Superintending, Engineer ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr.U.C.Behura,AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 15.04.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners as well as Mr. Behura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing 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 Petitioners with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. to why to show cause as Parties appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued for directing the Opp. Parties to regularize Page 1 of 7. the services of the petitioners with effect from their initial date of engagement for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and give them pension and other pensioinary benefits treating the entire period of service as regular employees and on perusal of causes shown if any or upon insufficient causes shown make the said rule absolute and may pass such other order/orders as deemed just and proper.” 4. It is submitted by Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that initially the Petitioners were appointed on DLR basis on 01.10.1990 and 01.06.1992 respectively. Thereafter, the Petitioners were brought over to the work charged establishment w.e.f. 14.01.2011. While working in the work charged establishment, the Petitioners are continuing in their respective services and will retire after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2026 and 31.03.2024 respectively. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although the Petitioner has retired from service, he has not been extended any pensionary benefits as has been done in case of many similarly situated persons. 5. Referring to the case of one Pradip Kumar Panigrahi v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.38771 of 2020 decided on 03.02.2021), learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that an identical issue was involved in the aforesaid writ petition. In case of above noted Pradip Kumar Panigrahi, the Petitioner initially approached the State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1393 of 2009, Page 2 of 7. which was disposed of vide order dated 12.04.2019. Being aggrieved the order passed by the Tribunal, the Petitioner, namely, Pradip Kumar Panigrahi approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.38771 of 2020. A Division Bench of this Court after hearing the counsels appearing for the parties
Decision
disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 03.02.2021 by passing a speaking order. While disposing of the writ petition, the Hon’ble Division Bench has specifically observed that the Petitioner should be treated to have been regularized in service at least one day prior to superannuation, by creating supernumerary post, if necessary and accordingly, he shall be extended with the pensionary benefits as would be admissible to him and that the entire exercise was directed to be concluded within a period of two months form the date of communication of a copy of that order. 6. In course of his argument, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners further contended that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above noted W.P.(C) No.38771 of 2020 was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing an appeal bearing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).50364 of 2023. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.01.2024 was pleased to dismiss the SLP preferred by the State-Opposite Parties with a specific observation in para-3 that the relief granted by this Court is justified in law as well as equity. Referring to the aforesaid judgment in Pradip Kumar Panigrahi’s case (supra), which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the case of the Petitioners is squarely covered Page 3 of 7. by the principle involved in the above noted judgment and, accordingly, the case of the Petitioners should also be considered in the light of the aforesaid principle. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that the Petitioners were initially appointed on DLR basis and thereafter they were brought over to the work charged establishment. However, the Petitioners were never regularized in service before their superannuation. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that since the Petitioners were not regular employees by the time they were superannuated from service, they are not entitled to any pensionary benefits. It was also contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that since the Petitioners are not regular Government employees, they would not be covered under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. It was also contended that there is a specific bar in the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 with regard to coverage of the DLR employees under the aforesaid rules. With regard to the order passed by this Court in Pradip Kumar Panigrahi’ case (supra), which was eventually confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that while disposing the State Appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has finally observed that the question of law is kept open to be decided in appropriate case. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the question of law which is the larger issue is required to be finally adjudicated and the same has not been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. On such ground, Page 4 of 7. learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to any pensionary benefits flowing from the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 as the DLR employees as well as the work charged employees are not covered under the aforesaid pension rules. Accordingly, it is submitted that the writ petition of the Petitioners is devoid of merit and, as such, the same should be dismissed at the threshold. 8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and further on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the materials on record, this Court observes that initially the Petitioners were engaged on DLR basis in the year 1988 and thereafter they were brought over to the work charged establishment only in the year 2011. Before Petitioners retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation their services could not be regularized in the regular establishment. Thus, the Petitioners after working continuously for more than three decades has not been treated as regular employees and, as such, they have not been paid the pensionry benefits as is due and admissible to such employees. In the aforesaid context, this Court examined the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Pradip Kumar Panigrahi’ case (supra). On a careful consideration of the said order passed by this Division Bench of this Court, this Court found that the factual background of the aforesaid case is almost identical to the facts of the Petitioners’ case. Moreover, this Court in many similar cases had taken on identical view as has been taken by the Division Bench in Page 5 of 7. Pradip Kumar Panigrahi’ case (supra). It would also be gainful to refer to the judgment in State of Orissa v. Narusu Pradhan (W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010) wherein the order passed by this Court directing one day regularization before retirement of employee and to grant pensionary benefit on the basis of such regularization has already been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the Petitioners have already approached the Opposite Party No.3-The Engineer-in-Chief (Civil), Bhubaneswar by filing a detailed representation on 25.02.2025 under Annexure-5 series to the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners further contended that no decision has been taken on such representation of the Petitioners. 9. Taking into consideration the factual background of the case and keeping in view the position of law as has been analysed hereinabove, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioners under Annexure-5 series within two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioners. Further, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the representation of the Petitioners in terms of the analysis made hereinabove as well as in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Pradip Kumar Panigrahi’ case (supra) and the representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within the aforesaid time stipulation. In the event it is found by the Opposite Party No.3 that the Page 6 of 7. Petitioners’ case is similar to that of Pradip Kumar Panigrahi’ case (supra) and in the absence of any legal impediment, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to sanction and grant the pensionary benefits in favour of the Petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such decision as has been directed hereinabove. The final decision so taken on such representation shall be communicated to the Petitioners within two weeks from the date of taking such decision. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 7 of 7. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 16-Apr-2025 17:18:20