The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.14109 of 2025 Dillip Kumar Sarkar @ Dilip Kumar Sarkar ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 16.05.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner has filed the above noted writ application with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to include him under G.P.F scheme taking into consideration his initial appointment 1987 under the Govt. of Odisha in Works Department for the purpose of pension under the old pension rule i.e. OCS (Pension) Rules 1992 as has been extended to similarly situated employees in the light of the principles decided in Harbans Lai V. The State of Punjab and others Page 1 of 7. (CWP No. 2371 of 2010, decided on 31.8.2010), which has been affirmed in SLP(c) No. 23578 of 2012 (SLP(C)..CC No.
Decision
17901 of 2011) disposed of on 30.7.2012 as has been granted to similarly situated persons viz- Pitambar Sahoo, O.A.No. 4189(c) of 2013, decided on 18.4.2017, which has been affirmed in W.P.(c) No.24041 of 2017 , decided vide order dt. 20.12.2017 as well as Apex court in SLP(c) Diary No. 30806/2018 decided vide order dt. 10.09.2018 and Sarbeswar Bhujabal, (O.A.No.606/2015), which has been affirmed vide order dt. 15.11.2019 in W.P.(c) No.7680/2019, and Hon’ble Supreme court in SLP(c) No.7541 of 2020, decided on 31.10.2022 and Narusu Pradhan vrs. State in O.A.No. 1189(c)/2006, which has been affirmed by in W.P.(c) No. 5377/2010 and SLP(c) cc No. 22498/2012, within a stipulated period of time. 4. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the Petitioner had initially joined as DLR basis during 1987. He continued in the said post continuously and thereafter, he was brought over to work charged establishment and then regular establishment on 17.01.2011 and 15.09.2018 respectively. Now he is at the verge of retirement i.e. on 30.06.2026. It is pertinent to mention here that other similar persons viz-Sri Pitambar Sahoo, Mate retired from service on 31.01.2012, Narusu Pradhan, Electrician, retired from service during 1998, Pitambar Mohapatra, Choukidar retired from service on 30.09.2008 have been sanctioned pension on the basis of the service rendered as NMR and under work charge establishment. Therefore, it is construed clear that the continuance of the Petitioner in DLR Page 2 of 7. and regular establishment have been considered from 1987 for all purposes including gratuity. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.1 should have kept in mind the Finance Department Resolution and the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the representation of the Petitioner to include under GPF Scheme taking into consideration the length of service rendered by the Petitioner in the establishment being a DLR, work charged and regular employee and continuous service. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.70(B) of 1997 by order dated 03.05.1999 analyzing various points of law directed the State Government to regularize in a establishment post from the time he completed five years of continuous service in work charged establishment and the period of service rendered by him till the date of retirement be counted towards the pension and direction was issued to grant pensionary benefit to the employees. He further submits that the Government challenging the order of the learned Tribunal approached this Court in filing OJC No.13552 of 1999 and this Court by order dated 01.05.2001 referring the judgment rendered in OJC No.1162 of 1999 (State of Orissa-vrs.- Jhuma Parida and others) and OJC No.11028 of 1999 (State of Orissa Vrs. Sudarsan Sahoo and others) confirmed the order passed by the learned Tribunal and dismissed the writ application. After dismissal of the writ application, the Government has brought the employee into regular Page 3 of 7. establishment for the purpose of granting pensonary benefit. 7. It is stated by the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties that the claim of the Petitioner is a stale claim. It is further stated by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that the cases cited by the Petitioner are different from the grievance of the Petitioner and the principle decided in the said case are not all applicable to the case of the present Petitioner. 8. Heard learned counsel for both sides. Perused the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Abhaya Chanrana Mohanty vrs. State of Odisha, WPC(OAC) No.3494 of 2013 disposed of on 14th July, 2021. In the said case, the Petitioner, who was a work charged employee, had claimed the pensionary benefits after his retirement with retrospective effect. This Court relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.21498 of 2012 thereby dismissing the State Government’s Appeal and confirming the order dated 19th December, 2011 of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010 in the case of one Narusu Pradhan vrs. State of Odisha allowed the writ petition and granted pensionary benefits as prayed for in that case. 9. Similarly, learned counsel for the Petitioner has also cited another order of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Nandi vrs. State of Odisha and others : reported in 2014(I) OLR 734. In the said reported case, this Court had Page 4 of 7. given a direction to notionally regularize service of the Petitioner prior to his superannuation from service and accordingly, calculated the Petitioner’s entitlement including the pensionary benefits. 10. So far the case of one Narusu Pradhan is concerned and which has been referred to by this Court in Abhaya Charan Mohanty (supra), said Narusu Pradhan had filed O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006 praying for retiral benefits. Learned Tribunal allowed the retiral pensionary benefits in his favour vide order dated 11th June, 2009. The order dated 19th June, 2009 was challenged by the State Government before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 19th December, 2021 and confirmed the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the State Government preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India bearing Civil Appeal No.22498 of 2012. The said appeal was also dismissed on 7th January, 2013 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India thereby confirming the orders passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal as well as this Court. Since the case of Narusu Pradhan is a case of work charged employee, who had worked for more than five years in work charged establishment had been allowed to receive pensionary benefits by virtue of order passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, which was ultimately confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the principle laid down in that case has become a Law of the land as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and is binding on this court while deciding cases of similar nature. Therefore, it is no more Page 5 of 7. open to the State Government to take stand contrary to the principle finally approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 11. The only benefit the petitioner is to get his pensionary benefits payable to the Petitioner i.e. required to be considered in the present writ petition. Since the benefits have been granted to other similarly placed work charged employees by notionally considering them as regular establishment employee and as such the pensionary benefits have been given to them, the same benefit is required to be considered and to be extended to the Petitioner for services rendered by him under the State Government for several decades continuously that too on payment of a paltry amount every month. The whole objective of the pension scheme is to support an employee and his family after retirement which is in recognition of his relentless service to the Govt. and such benefits are provided under the Rules on humanitarian considerations. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider and grant similar benefits to the Petitioner as has been done in the case of Narusu Pradhan vide order dated 11th June, 2009 passed in O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Opposite Party No.4 along with certified copy of this order and all other relevant documents and records for the processing of his claim. The Opposite Party No.4 upon receipt of certified copy of this order shall calculate and pay the benefits payable to the Petitioner, particularly his pensionary benefits, within a period Page 6 of 7. of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 13. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed. There shall no order as to cost. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 21-May-2025 14:21:05 Page 7 of 7.