The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.11025 of 2024 1) Prahalad Bhukta 2) Santanu Kumar Panigrahi ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. - Siba Prasad Swain -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Represented By Adv. – Mr. D. Nayak, AGA, Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 06.05.2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned Order No. 01. 1. 2. Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court would be graciously pleased to: i) Allow this Writ Petition ii) Issue Rule NISI, asking the Opp.Parties to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to grant/release the minimum pension and pensionary benefits along with 18% interest by declaring the Page 1 of 4. portion of order dated 31.01.2024 vide Annexure-5, "which is not to be cited as precedence in future" as illegal, arbitrary and violates the Atricle-14 of the Constitution of India and if the Opp.Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause, then issue a writ of mandamus in nature, thereby directing to the concerned Opp.Parties to grant/release the minimum pension and pensionary benefits along with 18% interest by declaring the portion of order dated 31.01.2024 vide Annexure-5 "which is not to be cited as precedence in future" as illegal, arbitrary and violates the Atricle-14 of the Constitution of India within a stipulated period. iii) And/or pass an order(s), direction(s), as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper.” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners that initially the Petitioners were appointed as Gram Panchayat Secretary on 01.03.1987. He further contended that since the date of appointment the Petitioners have been discharging their duties as Gram Panchayat Secretary. Finally on 17.08.2009, the Petitioners were promoted to the post of Village Level Worker (VLW) vide Annexure-1 series. While working as such the Petitioners have retired from government service w.e.f. 31.01.2019 under Annexure-2 series. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that although, the Petitioners have rendered several decades of service they have not been paid their minimum pension as is due and admissible to the Petitioners. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioners drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Odisha v. Niranjan Biswal in SLP(C) No.28065 of 2019 decided on 18.05.2022 submitted that the decision of this Court directing the Opposite Parties to grant minimum pension to the VLW by taking into consideration their past service on Gram Panchayat Secretary of qualifying period has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid order. He further contended that the Page 2 of 4. matter was pending before the Supreme Court, and some of the employees who were not party to the proceeding which pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the cases of such employees were also considered by the Supreme Court and the State Govt. was directed to consider their cases. After disposal of the case in Niranjan Biswal (supra), the State-Opposite Parties on 31.01.2024 has considered the case of the intervener Petitioners and they have been extended with the pensionary benefits, however, by passing order dated 31.01.2024. The State-Opposite Parties have observed that the said order shall not be treated as precedence in future. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that although the present Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the intervener-Petitioners. However, their case has not been considered as such. It was also contended that such conduct of the Opposite Parties in discriminating the present Petitioners are highly arbitrary and it violates like principle under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the Petitioners have not approached the Opposite Parties before approaching this Court by filing the present writ application. He further contended that he shall have no objection in the event the Petitioners are directed to approach the Opposite Parties for consideration of their case in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for both the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, further keeping in view the principle law laid down by this Court which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Niranjan Biswal’s case (supra), this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of Page 3 of 4. admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a fresh representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents. In such eventuality the Opposite Party shall do well to consider the same in the light of the judgment in Niranjan Biswal’s case (supra) and further taking into consideration the order dated 31.01.2024. The Court further makes it clear that in the event similarly situated persons have been extended with such benefits then the Petitioners cannot be deprived of such benefits solely on the ground that they have not approached the Hon’ble Apex Court while the matter pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is further directed that the representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of within a period of two months by the Opposite Party No.1 by passing a speaking and reasoned order. In the event it is found that the Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the persons who were party to the order dated 31.01.2024 under Annexure-5, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to extend similar benefits in favour of the Petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such decision. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a week from the date of taking such decision. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. S.K. Rout ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-May-2024 20:04:46 Page 4 of 4.