The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.10823 of 2024 Bipin Bihari Mohapatra ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Prasanta Kumar Satapathy -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Secretary, Finance Dept., Odisha 3) Director, P.r. Dept., Odisha 4) Collector-cum Eceutive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Mayurbhanj District 5) B.d.o., Moroda Block ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr.D.Mohapatra, ASC 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 Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer : “ The Petitioner therefore prays that your Lordship would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition calls for records after hearing the parties, issues writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other writ/directions directing the Opp.Parties to extend Page 1 of 5. the minimum pensionary benefit in favour of the Petitioner as retired VLW of Moroda Block like similarly situated employees who got such benefits after retirement as VLW and direct the Opp.Party-Director, Panchayatiraj Department to take decision on the Petitioner’s grievance under Annexure-1 within a stipulated period.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially engaged as Gram Panchayat Secretary on 01.11.1973. While working as such, the Petitioner was selected for the post of VLW. Accordingly, the Petitioner on being appointed, joined in the post of VLW with effect from 19.06.2009. While working as such, the Petitioner has retired on 31.03.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, the Petitioner has not been extended with the pensionary benefit, as a result of which the Petitioner was compelled to approach the Orissa Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.4394 of 2010. The said Original Application was disposed of on 17.02.2016 thereby directing the State-Opposite Parties to pay minimum pension to retired VLW considering the past service period as G.P.Secretary. It is further contended that the Orissa Administrative Tribunal has also allowed the Original Application of similarly situated employees, who have joined in his service as Gram Panchayat Secretary and subsequently promoted to the post of VLW, by holding that they are entitled to minimum pensionary benefit. Order so passed by the Tribunal was assailed by the State-Opposite Parties before this Court. The Writ Petition filed by the State-Opposite Parties bearing W.P.(C) No.4396 of 2010 was disposed of on 30.08.2018 thereby confirming the order of the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal. He further contended that the order passed by this Court was Page 2 of 5. challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No.28065 of 2019. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.05.2022 declined to interfere with the order passed by this Court, as a result of which the order passed by the Tribunal was confirmed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the light of the law laid down by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted before this Court that by applying the aforesaid legal principle the Petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefit. Accordingly, the Petitioner approached the authority of the Government by submitting a proposal for grant of pensionary benefit on 05.02.2024. He also contended that similarly situated employees have been extended such pensionary benefit on 31.08.2018. After such benefit was extended in favour of similarly situated persons, the Petitioner has filed an application on 05.02.2024. Since the Opposite Parties have not taken any decision on the application of the Petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit in favour of the Petitioner, challenging such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 5. Learned Additional Standing counsel on the other hand referred to the judgment of this Court in Adwait Chandra Jena vrs. Khandahata Grama Panchayat and others reported in 1998(II) OLR 410. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that a Full Bench of this Court has come to a conclusion that the service matter of the Grama Panchayat Secretary shall be entertained by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal since they held that those posts are not civil posts. On such ground, he submitted that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and Page 3 of 5. accordingly the same should be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further taking into consideration the relief sought for in the present Writ Petition that only grant of pensionary benefit in favour of the Petitioner, this court is of the considered view that the grant of pensionary benefits is a right of the Petitioner as conferred upon him under Article 21 as well as Article 300-A of the Constitution of India as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt.M.Paul Anthony-v.-Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that since non-sanction of the pensionary benefit infringes the right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India therefore, as this Court is of the view that the judgment in Adwait Chandra Jena’s case will not stand in the way so far as the maintainability of the Writ Petition is concerned. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, further taking into consideration the fact that similarly situated employees have been extended with such benefit, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach Opposite Party no.3 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds available to him along with all supporting documents. In such eventuality, Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the fact that similarly situated persons have been extended with similar pensionary benefit. The representation of the Petitioner be disposed of within two months from the date of filing of representation. The final decision so taken be communicated to Page 4 of 5. the petitioner within 10 days thereafter, 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 9. 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 15:06:03