The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23859 of 2023 Adwaita Kumar Biswal …. Petitioner Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, Advocate -versus- Principal Secy. To. Govt., Water Resources Dept., Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 11.12.2025 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.01.06.2023 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-5. Vide the said order, claim of the deceased employee to get the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits being a retired work charged employee was rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner entered into service as a work- charged Driver, where he joined on 20.03.1975. Subsequently, he was allowed to work as a Truck Driver w.e.f 08.08.1977. // 2 // 4.1.
Legal Reasoning
It is contended that while so continuing as a work- charged Truck Driver, Petitioner was reverted to his former post of Jeep Driver on 17.01.1990. While continuing as such in the work charged establishment as a Jeep Driver, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2003. 4.2. It is contended that on the face of such long continuance in the work charged establishment w.e.f. 20.03.1975 till 30.04.2003, deceased employee when was not sanctioned with pension and pensionary benefits, he approached the State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.52(C) of 2019 and the said matter on being transferred to this Court was disposed of vide order dtd.15.12.2022 under Annexure-3 by permitting the deceased employee to make a fresh application before Opposite Party No.1 for consideration of his grievance. Pursuant to such liberty granted by this Court, the deceased employee made a representation under Annexure-4. But the same when was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.01.06.2023, the present Writ Petition was filed challenging the same. However, during pendency of the matter, the deceased employee died on 21.03.2024 and wife of the deceased employee has been substituted in his place. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the deceased employee all though continued in the work charged establishment w.e.f. 20.03.1975 till 30.04.2003 and on the face of such long Page 2 of 5 // 3 // continuance, he was never regularized in the regular establishment in terms of the Finance Department Resolution dtd.15.05.1997 and the earlier Resolution governing the field, the deceased employee in view of the decision of the learned Tribunal so passed in O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006 (Narusu Pradhan vs. State of Orissa & Ors.) , confirmed by this Court as well as by the Apex Court with its due implementation, was eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits as due and admissible and so also family pension in favour of the Petitioner-wife. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to Opposite Party No.1 to extend the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits as due and admissible to the deceased employee and so also family pension in favour of the Petitioner from the date of her entitlement. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that Petitioner while continuing as a work-charged Truck Driver on promotion in the work-charged establishment, basing on his own request he was reverted to the post of work charged Jeep Driver and because of such reversion to the post of work charged Jeep Driver, he lost his seniority and accordingly could not be regularized. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 5.1. It is accordingly contended that since because of the request made by the Petitioner he was reverted to the post of work-charged Jeep Driver and accordingly he could not be regularized, no fault lies with the Department for not regularizing the deceased employee. 5.2. It is however not disputed that the deceased employee all through continued in the work charged establishment though in different posts w.e.f 20.03.1975 to 30.04.2003. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the deceased employee entered into service as a work charged Driver, where he joined on 20.03.1975. While so continuing he was appointed as a Truck Driver in the work charged establishment on 08.08.1977 and thereafter was reverted to the post of work charged Jeep Driver on 17.01.1990. 6.1. Even if admitting that such a reversion was made on the request of the deceased employee, but since it is not disputed that the deceased employee all through continued in the work charged establishment w.e.f. 20.03.1975 till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2003, claim of the Petitioner as per the considered view of this Court is covered by the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the case of Narusu Pradhan, so confirmed by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. Since the order passed in the case of Narusu Pradhan Page 4 of 5 // 5 // as admitted has already been implemented, this Court is also of the view that the deceased employee is entitled to get similar benefit. 6.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis and while holding so, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.01.06.2023 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-5. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to extend similar benefit as has been extended in the case of Narusu Pradhan in favour of the deceased employee and so also the family pension as due and admissible to the wife of the deceased employee / present Petitioner. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to pass an appropriate order and extend the benefit as directed hereinabove in favour of Petitioner-wife. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to complete the entire exercise within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with copy of the order passed in the case of Narusu Pradhan by the Tribunal and the order confirming the same by this Court as well as the Apex Court before Opposite Party No.1 for compliance. 7.
Decision
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Subrat Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-Dec-2025 15:11:52 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 5 of 5