The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 18779 of 2021 Goura Chandra Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. M.K. Mohapatro, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others … Opposite Parties Mr. A.P. Das, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 06.02.2024 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Decision
Additional Standing Counsel. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, call for the records, issue rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the action of the Opp. Parties in not regularizing the petitioner and granting the service of pensionary benefit after retirement shall not be declare as illegal and as to why appropriate direction shall not be given to issue formal order of regularization of the service of the petitioner as Amin and release the pension & pensionary benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date // 2 // in which it fell due, as if he retired as a regular employee and the services rendered by him right from the day he entered into the service shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension within a stipulated time period fixed by this Hon’ble Court. If the Opp. Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause made the Rule absolute. And any other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper for the interest for justice.” The factual background leading to filing of the present Writ 4. Petition is that on 26.12.1979 the Petitioner was appointed as Amin on work charge basis by Opposite Party No.4 i.e., Chief Construction Engineer, Upper Indravati Irrigation Project, Kalahandi, Mukhiguda, Keonjhar. While working as such the Petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.03.2013. Since the service of the Petitioner was not regularized and he was not extended the pensionary benefit, the Petitioner had earlier approached the State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack by filing an Original Application vide O.A. No.2480(C) of 2001 and after abolition of the Tribunal, the said O.A. has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as WPC(OAC) No.2480 of 2001 which was disposed of on 21.06.2021 with liberty to the Petitioner to file a separate writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. Mohapatro, learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his argument, referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Debendranath Samal –v. State of Odisha and others in W.P.(C) No.4604 of 2021, along with batch of similar Writ Petitions, which was disposed of by this Court vide impugned // 3 // judgment dated 22.11.2023, submitted before this Court that the Petitioner in the above noted Writ Petition is similarly placed to the present Petitioner. This Court after a detailed analysis of the factual background as well as law applicable to the fact of the case of the Petitioner, has come to a categorical conclusion that the Petitioners were working for several decades as work charge employee till retirement from his service. Accordingly, this Court held that unless the Petitioner is paid his pensionary benefit, it would cause injustice to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the above noted Writ Petition was disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and further directing the Opposite Party no.1 to regularize the services of the Petitioner for a day only i.e day before the date of retirement and the Petitioner be paid the pensionary benefit in terms of the judgment in the case of Narsu Pradhan-v.-State of Odisha as decided by this Court, eventually affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court within a period of three months. Since the Petitioner stands in a similar footing with the persons who had earlier approached this Court along with the above named Debendranath Samal, the Petitioner claims parity with the abovenamed persons and seeks similar relief as has been granted in the case of Debendranath Samal. 6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that OCS(Pension) Rule, 1992 does not provide for grant of retiral and pensinoary benefit to the Work Charged employees and that since the Petitioner was admittedly working in the work charged establishment by the time he took retirement from service, his services were not regularized in pensionable establishment. Accordingly, the Petitioner is not entitled to the // 4 // pensionary benefit as claimed in the present Writ Petition. 7. In course of argument, learned Additional Standing Counsel also refers to the Resolution of the G.A. Department, Government of Odisha dated 15.05.1997 and the same provides some preconditions which are required to be fulfilled before bringing the employees to the Work charged establishment and eventually regularisation of their services. In view of the aforesaid G.A. department Resolution learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that regularization of service of the Petitioner is not automatic, rather the same is subject to fulfillment of condition of the Resolution dated 15.05.1997. Moreover since the Petitioner was not regularized, he is not entitled to any pensionary benefit and there is no such provision in the OCS(Pension) Rule, 1992. 8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel in course of his arguments submitted before this Court that the Petitioner has been granted benefit in terms of Work Charged Employees (Appointment and Condition of Service) Instructions, 1974. Therefore, he has no further right to claim any other benefit as they will be governed under the aforesaid instruction of the year 1974. He further contended that in view of the G.A. department Resolution dated 15.05.1997 NMR/DLR were absorbed and were subsequently brought to Work Charged establishment by creating adequate number of posts in the said Work Charged establishment. In view of the aforesaid submissions, earned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the Petitioner is not entitled to any other benefit. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly be dismissed. 9. In reply to the argument of the learned Additional Standing // 5 // Counsel, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the submissions made by the learned Additional Standing Counsel have been taken into consideration in the earlier Writ Petition. On the face of such ground, this Court by a detailed judgment has come to a conclusion that similarly situated persons, who are Petitioners in the above Writ Petition have been extended with such benefit. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that pursuant to the judgment of this Court in the above noted judgment, the employees involved therein have been given benefits vide Office order dated 27.08.2021 and further in O.A. No.622 of 1999, the Opposite Party No.1 has already granted benefit to one similar situated person vide order under Annexure-11 to the Writ Petition. The Petitioner stand in a similar footing with the persons are covered by the judgment of the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 2599(C) of 1999 in the matter of Kashidev Moharana-v.-State of Odisha and others as well as O.A. No.622 of 2019 under Annexure-10 series, which was eventually affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.7018 of 2003 as well as this Court. In the aforesaid factual as well as legal background, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he is entitled to such benefit. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner needs to be considered keeping in view the subsequent development that has taken place in the case of similarly situated employees. 10. In view of the aforesaid analysis of facts as well as law, on a careful examination of the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, further taking into consideration the judgment relied upon in course of hearing, this Court is of the considered view that the matter be considered in the light of the // 6 // later development that has taken place which has been discussed hereinabove. Accordingly, the Petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.3 within three weeks from today. In the event the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.3, the Opposite Party No.3 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the law laid down in Debendranath Samal’s case (supra) as well as Narsu Pradhan’s case within a period of two months from the date the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.3. It is further directed that in such event the Opposite Party No.3 would first examine as to whether the present Petitioner stands in a similar footing to the above noted case and if the Opposite Party No.3 comes to a conclusion that the Petitioner stands in similar footing with the above noted Petitioners, the same benefit which have been granted to the similarly situated employees under Annexure-11 series to the Writ Petition, shall also be extended in favour of the present Petitioner, if there is no other legal impediment. 11. With the aforesaid observation the Writ Petition stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 12-Feb-2024 11:56:45