The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.11521 of 2024 Gokul Chandra Nayak ..... Petitioner -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Satyajit Behera Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. D. Nayak, AGA 1) State Of Odisha 2) Collector Cum Chairman 3) Project Admisnistrator 4) Accountant General CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 08.05.2024 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Order No. 01. 1. 2. counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “Under the circumstances, it is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs by quashing the letter dated 20.01.2024 issued by the opp.party No.3 under Annexure-11; And further be pleased to direct the opp.party No.3 to sanction and disburse pension, DCRG and other retirement benefits the petitioner. Keeping in view the order under Annexure-12 & 13 within a stipulated period; favour of in And further be pleased to direct the opp.parties to give all consequential service benefits; Page 1 of 4. or pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper; And allow this writ application with cost.” 4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner while working as an employee under the ITDA, Phulbani, under the Opposite party No.3 has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation under Annexure-6 to the writ application. He further contended that although the Petitioner has retired from service however, he has not been paid the pension and pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Opposite Party No.3 has sought for clarification from the Govt. vide his letter dated 20.01.2024 under Annexure-11 with regard to payment of pension and pensionary benefits to the employees, who were working under the ITDA. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) (OAC) No.2103 of 2016 by a Coordinate Bench vide judgment dated 06.12.2022, submitted that this Court has categorically held that the employees who were working under ITDA are entitled to the pension and pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the said writ application was allowed with a direction to the Opposite Parties to take steps to grant pension and pensionary benefits as is due and admissible in law to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy thereof. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that, the judgment delivered by the Coordinate Bench in the above noted writ application in the case of Niranjan Panigrahi v. State of Odisha and others was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.3001 of 2023. The Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal thereby confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge Bench. Thereafter, the said opposite parties preferred an appeal before Page 2 of 4. the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing the SLP (C) No.7053-7054 of 2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.04.2024 has been pleased to dismiss the State’s appeal thereby confirming the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge bench with a further direction to the Opposite parties to grant relief to the respondents. 6. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position and keeping the dismissal of the appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Niranjan Panigrahi’s case has attained finality. Therefore the opposite parties are bound to apply the same to the case of all similarly situated employees in the State of Odisha. He also contended that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court that the opposite parties have extended such benefits to, other similarly situated persons under Annexure-10 to the writ application. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite parties be directed to extend the similar benefits in favour of the Petitioner as has been granted to similarly situated employees under Annexure-10 to the writ application by keeping in view of the judgment in Niranjan Panigrahi’s case (supra) referred to hereinabove. 7. Learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties on the other hand contended that the Petitioner has not approached the opposite parties before approaching this Court. He contended that in the event this Court directs the Petitioner to approach the opposite parties by filing a fresh representation along with all supporting documents, with a further direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the same in accordance with law, within a stipulated period of time, he shall have no objection to the same. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the Page 3 of 4. background facts as well as materials on record, further keeping in view the judgment of this Court in Niranjan Panigrahi’s case (supra) as has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted appeal, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision in terms of the judgment of this Court in Niranjan Panigrahi’s case (supra) within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. Further the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to provide the requisite clarification/instruction within the aforesaid time. Keeping in view the aforesaid analysis of law, upon furnishing such instruction/clarification, Opposite Party Nos. 3 & 4 shall process the claim of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law and pass necessary consequential orders to extend similar benefits in favour of the Petitioner within a period for four weeks from the date of taking such instruction/clarification from the opposite Party No.1. Any decision so taken by the opposite parties be intimated to the Petitioner and communicated within a period of ten days from the date of taking such decision. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. 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 Page 4 of 4. Date: 09-May-2024 19:48:35