The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12074 of 2025 Saroj Kumar Rout ..... Petitioner -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Director,health Serivces,bbsr 3) Chief Dist. Medical And Public Health Officer,balangir Balangir 4) Principal Accountant General,bbsr ..... Represented By Adv. - Krishna Chandra Sahu Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr.U.C.Jena, ASC Mr.S.K.Patra, Standing Counsel for A.G.Odisha CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 03.05.2025 Order No. 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-Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the writ Petition by directing the Opp.Parties for granting of all consequential service benefits flows as per the order of this Hon’ble Court as per Annexure-3 by passing an order in favour of the Petitioner to that effect for governing the services of the Petitioner under the old O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992 and existing GPF(O) Rules with all Page 1 of 5. consequential service benefits within a time bound period for the interest of justice. And may pass any other Writ(s), Direction(s), Order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper;” 4.
Legal Reasoning
It is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner on being selected appointed as Pharmacist on 27.04.2002 on contractual basis as per the order passed by the C.D.M.O., Balangir. While continuing in service, by virtue of the Government order dated 31.12.2008 the C.D.M.O., Balangir has regularised the service of the Petitioner with effect from 01.01.2009 and the Petitioner was continuing at PHC(N), Khalipathar under the administrative control of CDM & PHO, Balangir. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that while the Petitioner was continuing as such, the Opposite Party No.4 vide his letter dated 06.01.2014 directed the Opposite Party No.3 to cancel the GPF subscription which was being deposited by the employer in respect of the Petitioner and other similarly situated employees those who have initially joined on contractual basis prior to 01.01.2005. The aforesaid decision of Opposite Party no.4 dated 06.01.2014 was assailed before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1311 of 2015. After abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application was transferred to this Court and registered as WPC(OA) No.1311 of 2015. A coordinate Bench of this court disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and GPF(O) Rules 1938 Page 2 of 5. and accordingly the Petitioner was allowed to contribute to GPF in his GPF Account number which has already assigned to the Petitioner. 6. In course of argument, learned counsel or the Petitioner further submitted that in the case of similarly situated employees, namely, Aswini Kumar Panda, learned Tribunal also passed an order on 15.07.2019 with a direction to grant such benefit under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 and GPF(O) Rules 1938 to the Petitioner in O.A.No.805 of 2015.Such order was again challenged by the state-Opp.Parties before the Division Bench by filing W.P.(C) no.38625 of 2020. The Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 19.04.2022 dismissed the Writ Petition thereby confirming the order passed in the Original Application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State Opposite Parties preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court bearing SLP (Civil) Diary No. 14632 of 2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture referring to the order under Annexure-6 contended that by virtue of the order dated 03.07.2023 dismissed the said SLP. As such the initial order passed by the learned Tribunal has attained finality. 7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for his inclusion under the OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992 and GPF (O) Rules, 1938. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has already approached the C.D.M.& PHO, Opposite Party No.3 on Page 3 of 5. 15.09.2021 and no decision has been taken on such representation. 8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State contended that although he has no instruction in the matter,
Decision
however, as is evident from the pleadings in the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Parties for redressal of his grievance. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that in the event this Court directs the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Parties by filing a fresh representation with a corresponding direction to consider the representation of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time, he will have no objection to the same. 9. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, on a close scrutiny of the factual backgrounds of the present case as well as keeping in view the nature of grievance involved in the present Writ Petition and taking into consideration the legal position, as is evident from the orders filed along with the Writ Petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3 by filing a representation taking therein all the grounds including the orders of various authorities annexed to the Writ Petition within two weeks. In such eventuality, Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 3 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the observation made hereinabove and keeping in view the order passed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court within two months from the date Page 4 of 5. the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Parties along with copy of this order. It is further directed that the representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken on the representation of the Petitioner be communicated to the Petitioner within 10 days thereafter. In the event, it is found that the Petitioner is covered by this order passed by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in absence of any legal impediment, necessary follow up action be taken by the Opposite Parties to include the Petitioner under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 as well as GPF(O) Rule, 1938. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order in course of the day. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-May-2025 16:09:08