The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.9590 of 2024 Ramesh Chandra Mohapatra ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Engineer-in-chief (civil) , Odisha 3) Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circel (r And B) , Odisha 4) Executive Engineer, General Electrical Division No. I 5) Secretary To Govt. Of Orissa Finance Dept. 6) Accountant General ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr.D.Mohapartra, ASC Mr.S.K.Patra, Standing Counsel for A.G.Odisha THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA CORAM: Order No.
Decision
ORDER 06.05.2024 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 and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel for AG Odisha. Perused the Writ Petition as Page 1 of 5. well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “ It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- i) Direct the Opp.Parties to grant pension and pensionary benefits under the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 taking into account the regular period of service from01.05.1999 to 31.01.2009 total 9 years and 9 months by counting so much of period service rendered in NMR as has been granted to similarly situated persons in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Radhashyama Mohanta vide order dated 20.02.2009 passed by the learned O.A.T. Bhubaneswar inO.A.No.412/2008, which has been in W.P.(C) this Hon’ble Court affirmed by No.12377/2009 vide order dated 08.03.20210 and confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.36038/2010, decided on 29.08.2017 and Pitambar Mohapatra, O.A.No.3574(C)/2011, which has been affirmed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.13483 of 2012 vide order dated 14.09.2017 and Sarbeswar Bhujabal, (O.A.No.606/2015, which has been affirmed vide order dated 15.11.2019 in W.P.(C) in No.7680/2019 and Hon’ble Supreme Court SLP(C) No.7541 of 2020, decided on 31.10.2022 and Chandra Nandi v. State of Orissa, W.P.(C) No.19550/2011, which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Corut vide order dated 06.05.2022 in SLP(C) No.21180/2021 and State of Odisha vrs. Pitambar Sahoo, W.P.(C) No.24041/2017 (decided on 20.12.2017), which has been affirmed in SLP(C) Diary No.30806/2018 within a stipulated period; ii) Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as would be deem fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice;” Page 2 of 5. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially appointed on 001.12.1979 in the post of Wireman by the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle (R & B), Odisha on NMR basis. Thereafter, the Petitioner continued to service uninterruptedly. When the Petitioner was continuing, the Notification of the Finance Department dated 15.05.1997 had come into force. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of such Notification, the Petitioner should have been brought over to the regular establishment immediately. Thereafter his services have been regularized as has been provided in the Resolution dated 15.05.1997. Finally, on 01.05. 1999 the service of the Petitioner was regularized as per the decision of the Government in the post of Wireman (Group-D). Finally, after rendering service the Petitioner was retired from service on 31.01.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Wireman. In view of the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.1 be directed to pay the pensionary benefit to the Petitioner taking into consideration the past service rendered by the Petitioner both as NMR as well as his service rendered in the regular establishment. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the retirement benefit as well as the pensionary benefit as is due and admissible to the Petitioner taking into consideration the judgment vide Annexure-4 as well as the benefits given to similarly situated persons vide Annexure-5. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that since the Petitioner does not have the qualifying service period, he is not entitled to pensionary benefit. Accordingly, the authorities have not considered the case of the Petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit. However, with regard to payment of retiral dues, Page 3 of 5. learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the amount as is due ad admissible to the Petitioner has already been paid to the Petitioner on his superannuation from service. Accordingly it was submitted that the Writ Petition was devoid of merit and the same be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful examination of the background facts of the present case and keeping in view the well settled position of law that once an employee who was working initially as NMR, thereafter brought over to regular establishment and finally, he retired from service shall be considered for payment of pensionary benefit by taking into consideration as how much period of service rendered in NMR basis, calculate the minimum qualifying period of service for grant of pensionary benefit. Such a proposition of law as has been propounded by this Court has already been accepted by many judgments of this Court viz. Radheshyam Mohanta and Pitambar Mohapatra vide Annexue-4 & 5.. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the aforesaid legal position and in the event the Opposite Parties come to a conclusion that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit claimed by him. In such eventuality the Opposite Parties shall do well to calculate the minimum qualifying service period of the Petitioner taking the shortfall period from the service period of the Petitioner as work Charged employee/NMR to calculate the minimum qualifying service period, the benefit which is due and admissible to the Petitioner on the basis of his last pay drawn accordingly, the same be sanctioned and disbursed to the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order. In the event, the Petitioner though is getting Page 4 of 5. any other pensionary benefit, the same shall be surrendered before the Government. Any decision taken be communicated to the Petitioner within 10 days of taking such decision. 7. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge RKS Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5. Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 08-May-2024 15:06:01