Khetramohan Naik v. State of Odisha and others) and a batch of similar other cases. In t
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12315 of 2024 1) Abhaya Kumar Das 2) Raghunath Samal 3) Dhirendra Prasad Das ..... Petitioners Represented By Adv. – Mr.M.K.Mishra, Senior Advocate along with Mr.T.K.Mishra, Advocate 1) State Of Odisha 2) Principal Secy, Finance -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – D.Mohapatra, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 16.05.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued directing the Opp. Parties to grant pension and pensionary benefits, by taking into account their past services in their former post of Page 1 of 6. prior Secretary, Panchayat Gram to theirpromotion as V.L.W. and disburse all consequential service benefit in favour of the petitioners within a stipulated time, and on if any or upon perusal of causes shown insufficient causes shown make the said rule absolute and may pass such other order/orders as deemed just and proper.” 4. It is submitted by Mr. M.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the common order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.4394(C)/2010 (Khetramohan Naik v. State of Odisha and others) and a batch of similar other cases. In the above noted order, the Odisha Administrative Tribunal disposed of the batch of Original Applications vide common order dated 17.02.2016 by observing that the period of service of the applicants as Gram Panchayat Secretaries is for a considerable length of time. The Tribunal further directed the Opposite Parties to consider their grievance for grant of minimum pension by adding so much of the period of service as G.P. Secretary to their period of regular service as V.L.Ws. to make them eligible to get minimum pension and accordingly, it was directed that the minimum pension amount be paid as is due and admissible from time to time from the date of their retirement. Page 2 of 6. 5. The aforesaid common order in the batch of Original Applications passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal was assailed by the State-Opposite Parties before the Division Bench of this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.6267 of 2018 (State of Odisha and others v. Niranjan Biswal). The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 30.08.2018 disposed of the said writ petition by affirming the order passed by the Tribunal and, accordingly, the writ petition filed by the State-Opposite Parties was dismissed. 6. After disposal of the said writ petition, the State- Opposite Parties approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).28065 of 2019 (The State of Odisha and Ors. V. Niranjan Biswal & Ors.). The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.05.2022 disposed of the appeal preferred by the State-Appellants in the above noted case by taking into consideration the fact that once the 21 O.As. decided by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, vide a common order dated 17.02.2016, has not been challenged at a later stage by the Government of Odisha before this Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same has attained finality. It has also been observed that there is no application pending before either the High Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to implead such persons, against whom the order of the Tribunal has attained finality to be impleaded as parties. On such ground, the SLP Page 3 of 6. was dismissed. However, while dismissing such SLP, the question of law was left open to be examined in other appropriate proceedings. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, referring to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, submitted that while disposing of the SLP in the case of The State of Odisha & Ors. V. Niranjan Biswal & Ors., The Hon’ble Supreme Court has left the question of law open to be examined in other appropriate proceeding. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that since the question of law has been kept open by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State-Opposite Parties have every right to raise the question of law in the present proceeding. 8. On a careful examination of the materials on record as well as the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court observes that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already been implemented in the meantime vide order dated 31.01.2024 under Annexure-12 to the writ petition. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner, who stands in similar footing, cannot be discriminated against him while getting similar service benefits, like the minimum pension, as has been granted by the Tribunal in the earlier case which Page 4 of 6. has ultimately been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Further, coming to the point raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate with regard to the leave granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to raise the question of law in other appropriate proceeding, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot take a different stand and is bound by the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in the earlier writ petition. Therefore, the validity of the decision taken by the Division Bench in the earlier writ petition cannot be gone into or examined by the present Bench consisting of a Single Judge. 10. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in Niranjan Biswal’s case (supra) which has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court and eventually upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order dated 26.02.2024 under Annexure-14 to the writ petition is hereby set aside. Moreover, the grounds taken by the State-Opposite Parties while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner under Annexure-14, vide order dated 26.02.2024, appears to be unsustainable in the eye of law, so far the present writ petition is concerned. Consequently, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner afresh in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Odisha and Ors. V. Page 5 of 6. Niranjan Biswal & Ors. in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).28065 of 2019 and by taking into consideration the order dated 31.01.2024 under Annexure-12 to the writ petition. It is further directed that the Opposite Parties shall examine the case of the Petitioner and in the event the Opposite Parties come to a conclusion that the Petitioner stands in similar footing with the above named Niranjan Biswal, then similar benefits be extended in favour of the Petitioner by taking into consideration so much of his service period as Gram Panchayat Secretary for grant of and for calculation of minimum pension and pensionary benefits as VLW/PEOs. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of two months. Any final decision taken by the Opposite Party No.1 be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such decision. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-May-2024 11:58:14