The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.23433 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, ……………… Debadhi Charan Sahu …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : M/s. M. Pati, S.P. Rath, S. Kar & S.S. Pati, Advocate For Opp. Parties: Mr. A. Tripathy, Additional Government Advocate PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:21.08.2025 and Date of Judgment:21.08.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the claim of the Petitioner to treat him as a regular employee and thereby extending him with the benefit of pension as provided under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Such claim of the // 2 // Petitioner was rejected vide order dt.29.06.2022 under Annexure-9 by Opp. Party No.1. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and after facing the required interview was appointed as an Amin in the Work Charged Establishment vide order of appointment issued on 19.09.1979 under Annexure-1. Petitioner joined in the work charged establishment in terms of the order issued under Annexure-1 on 19.09.1979 itself. 3.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner continued in the work charged establishment w.e.f 19.09.1979, but at no point of time, Petitioner was absorbed in the regular establishment in terms of the office Memorandum issued by the Finance Department on 06.03.1990 under Annexure-5 and resolution dt.15.05.1997 issued by the self-same Finance Department under Annexure-6. 3.2. It is contended that by the time resolution dt.15.05.1997 was issued under Anenxure-6, Petitioner had already completed more than 10 years of engagement in the Work Charged establishment and accordingly he was otherwise eligible to get the benefit of absorption in the regular establishment. However, on the face of such resolution issued under Annexures-5 & 6, Petitioner was never absorbed in Page 2 of 9 // 3 // the Work Charged establishment. It is also contended that on the face of such long continuance in the Work Charged establishment, Petitioner’s claim for regularization was also not considered in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Uma Devi & Others. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi in Para-44 has held as follows:- “44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained (supra), R.N. in S.V. Narayanappa Nanjundappa (supra) and B.N. Nagarajan (Supra), and referred to in paragraph-15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one- time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgement, but there should be no further by passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” Page 3 of 9 // 4 // 3.3. It is contended that on the face of such long continuance in the Work Charged establishment, Petitioner when was not regularized, he moved the Tribunal seeking his absorption in the regular establishment in OA No.301 of 2010. But during pendency of the said Original Application, Petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2010 vide order under Annexure-2. Thereafter, the matter on being transferred to this Court was disposed of vide order dt.07.02.2022 under Annexure-7, with a direction on the Opp. Party No.1 to consider the Petitioner’s claim in the light of the decision in the case of Bandhua Gochhayat Vs. State of Odisha & Others (WPC
Decision
(OAC) NO.864 of 2018, disposed of on 17.12.2021 and in the case of Laxmidhar Mahapatra Vs. Principal Secretary to Govt., Water Resources Dett. & Others (in WPC (OA) No.1490 of 2008, disposed of on 18.01.2022). 3.4. It is contended that in terms of the order Petitioner when made a detailed application vide Annexure-8 on 14.02.2022, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dt.29.06.2022 under Annexure-9. 3.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner from 19.09.1979 to 30.04.2010 continued in the Work Charged Page 4 of 9 // 5 // Establishment, he should have been absorbed in the regular establishment in terms of the resolution issued by the Finance Department under Annexures- 5 & 6 and so also in terms of the decision in the case of Uma Devi as cited supra. But Petitioner was never regularized and thereby making him entitled to get the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits in terms of the provisions contained under OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992. This Court when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim in the light of similar claim allowed in the case of Bandhua Gochhayat and other similar decisions but the same was rejected with a plea that the Petitioner was not a party to the proceeding in the said cases. 3.6. It is contended that similar claim made by one Narusu Pradhan in OA NO.1179(C ) of 2006 when was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dt.11.06.2009, the same was assailed by the State before this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.5377 of 2010. When this Court dismissed the Writ Petition vide order dt.19.12.2011, the matter was carried to the Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No.22498 of 2012. But Hon’ble Apex Court also dismissed the SLP after condoning the delay on merit. 3.7. It is contended that since claim made by the Narusu Pradhan is completely similar to that of the Page 5 of 9 // 6 // present claim of the Petitioner and such claim after being allowed by the Tribunal was upheld by this Court as well as by the Apex Court with due extension of the benefit in favour of the Petitioner therein, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim on the ground indicated in the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that the impugned rejection be quashed and appropriate direction be issued to extend the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits in favour of the deceased employee in terms of the provisions contained under OCS (Pension) Rules 1992 and family pension in favour of the Petitioner. 4. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been issued since 14.09.2022, but no counter affidavit has been field as yet. However, basing on the materials available on record, it is contended that since Petitioner on the face of his continuance in the Work Charged Establishment never moved the authority seeking absorption of his service and such a claim was only made in the year 2010, just prior to his retirement, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit as prayed for. 4.1. It is also contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court under Annexure-7, Petitioner’s claim was duly considered and it was found that he is not eligible to get the benefit and accordingly, his Page 6 of 9 // 7 // claim was rejected vide the impugned order dt.29.06.2022 under Annexure-9. It is contended that since Petitioner never approached the authority seeking absorption in the regular establishment and such a claim was made just prior to his retirement, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order requires no interference. 5. Having heard learned counsel appealing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that on being sponsored by the Employment Exchange with facing of an interview, the deceased employee was appointed as an Amin in the Work Charged Establishment vide order dt.14.09.1979 under Annexure-1. In terms of the said order, Petitioner joined in the Work Charge Establishment on 19.09.1979. As found on the face of such continuance in the Work Charged Establishment w.e.f 19.09.1979, Petitioner was never absorbed in the regular establishment in terms of the Office Memorandum issued by the FiancØ Department on 06.03.1990 and 15.05.1997 under Annexures-5 & 6. 5.1. Not only that, on the face of the decision in the case of Uma Devi, no step was taken to absorb the Petitioner in the regular establishment, as by the said date, Petitioner had already completed more Page 7 of 9 // 8 // than 10 years of engagement in the Work Charge Establishment. Not only that, on the face of the order passed in different cases, more particularly, in the case of Narusu Pradhan, so cited supra which was upheld by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Petitioner was never absorbed in the regular establishment in the Work Charged Establishment and he retired while continuing in the Work Charge Establishment on 30.04.2010 as found from Annexure-2. 5.2. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Narusu Pradhan so upheld by this Court as well as by the Apex Court, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order dt.29.06.2022 so issued by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-9. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party Nos.1 & 2 to extend the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits by treating the Petitioner as a regular employee at the time of his retirement on 30.04.2010 in terms of the provision contained under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. This Court directs Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of Page 8 of 9 // 9 // this order along with arrear entitlement as due and admissible to the Petitioner. 5.4. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 21st August, 2025/sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaiton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2025 17:25:46 Page 9 of 9