The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24616 of 2023 Sukanta Behera -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. Gyanaranjan Sethi, Advocate State of Odisha and others. …. Opp. Parties Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 14.08.2023 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner has filed the above noted writ application with a prayer to the Opposite Parties to sanction pension and pensionary benefits including Gratuity and unutilized leave salary in favour of the Petitioner under the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 in the light of the benefit given to similarly placed persons on the basis of his regular service as Khalasi from 1.4.1992 as has been decided vide order dated 22.2.2011 in O.A. No.555(C)/2000, which has been affirmed vide order dated 2.8.2019 in W.P.(C) No.22688/2011 and order dated 19.05.2020 in SLP(C) Diary No.5782/2020 and his entire service period from 1.11.1989 till 31.12.1999 may be treated as qualifying service for computing the pensionary benefits in the light of the decision in the case of Narusu // 2 // Pradhan, O.A. No.1189(c)/2006, which has been affirmed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.5377/2010 vide order dated 19.12.2011 and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(c) CC No.22498/2012 and the State of Punjab vs. Harbanslal in SLP(c) No.23578 of 2012 and judgment dated 26.08.2020 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3984 of 2010 (V. Sukumaran vs. State of Kerala and others), with all consequential benefits. Further pension and pensionary benefits be granted under the old rule in the light of the decision in the case of State of Odisha vrs. Pitambar Sahoo, W.P.(C) No.24041 of 2017 decided on 20.12.2017, which has been affirmed in SLP(C) Diary No.30806 of 2018 and Chandra Nandi vrs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.19950 of 2011 decided on 03.02.2021 and Premananda Tripathy vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.27950 of 2019 decided on 03.02.2021 and Narusu Pradhan, SLP No.22498 of 2012; State of Orissa and others vrs. Jyosna Rani Pattanaik and others, W.P.(C) No.1534 of 2008; State of Orissa vrs. Pitambar Mohapatra, W.P.(C) No.13483 of 2012; and State of Orissa vrs. Radheshyam Mohanta, W.P.(C) No.12377 of 2009, which has been affirmed in SLP(C) No.36038 of 2020 as well as the benefits given to similar persons. 4. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the Petitioner had initially joined on DLR basis during 1992 in the office of Assistant Executive Engineer, Nurtanga Irrigation Sub-Division, Jagatpur. Thereafter, he was brought over to work charged establishment on 9.10.2009 under Annexure-2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.3 should have kept in mind the Finance Department Resolution and the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court while rejecting // 3 // the representation of the Petitioner and also taken into consideration the length of service rendered by the Petitioner in the establishment being a work charged employee and continuous service. 6. It is stated by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties that the claim of the Petitioner is a stale claim. Further it is submitted 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. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the Opposite Party No.3 has given due care and caution towards implementation of order passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court and the guidelines and circulars issued by the State Government from time to time. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. Perused the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Abhaya Charan Mohanty vs. 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 vs. State of Odisha allowed the writ petition and granted pensionary benefits as prayed for in that case. 8. Similarly, learned counsel for the Petitioner has also cited another order of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of // 4 // Chandra Nandi vs. State of Odisha and others, reported in 2014(I) OLR 734. In the said reported case, this Court had 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. 9. 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 open to the State Government to take a stand // 5 // contrary to the principle finally approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 10. The only benefit the Petitioner intends to get is 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 needs 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. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to grant similar benefits to the Petitioner as has been done in the case of Narusu Prahdan vide order dated 11th June, 2009 passed in O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 along with the certified copy of this order and all other relevant documents and records for the processing of his claim. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 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 of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition is // 6 // allowed. There shall be no order as to cost. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC CUTTACK Date: 18-Aug-2023 20:03:01