The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.C(OA) No.1917 of 2015 Sasmita Sahu …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 24.06.2022 Order No 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. S. Patra, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 5. 3. Originally, the case was filed in the Tribunal in Original Application No.1917 of 2015. On being transferred to this Court, the same has been registered as W.P.C.(OA) No.1917 of 2015. The petition involves the following prayer: “i) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to admit the Original Application, ii) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents that the applicant is to be governed under the fold of old pre-amended O.C.S (Pension) // 2 // Rules 1992 and exising GPF (O) Rules but not under the new restructured defined pension scheme as per the Finance Deptt. Memorandum dtd.17.9.2005 as it has not applicable in case of the applicant by holding that treating the applicant under new- amended pension rule so also allotting of PRAN number to her as illegal, discriminatory & unjustified one, (iii) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direc the respondents for allotment of GPF number in her favour by making GPF deduction from her salary on regular basis as usual and also entitled to get all consequential service benefits so also the pensionary benefits as per the pre-amended Pension Rule for the interest of justice. 4. Background involving the case is that the applicant being a Diploma Holder in Nursing and Midwifery was selected in a duly constituted selection committee and accordingly appointed as Staff Nurse on contractual basis. While the Petitioner was continuing as such by Office Order dtd.12.02.2009 of the Chief District Medical Officer, Malkanagiri the service of the Petitioner was regularized and by the time of filing of the Original Application, the Petitioner was continuing as a regular employee. While the petitioner was continuing as a contractual Staff Nurse, State Government issued a notification dated 17.09.2005 introducing a new restructured defined contribution pension scheme for the new entrants in the State Government service with effect from 01.01.2005. While matter stood above, there arose some doubt in the matter of implementation of such circular, clarification appears to have been Page 2 of 5 // 3 // issued to all Departments of the Government vide intimation dated 04.04.2007 indicating therein that the cases of employees would be governed in terms of OCS Pension Rule, 1992 and existing GPF(O) Rules. It is after such clarification is issued, the Director Health Services, Odisha vide letter dated 18.12.2014 issued instruction to all Chief District Medical Officers of the State directing therein for deduction of G.P.F. deduction of the staff under their control and those who were appointed on contractual basis prior to 01.01.2005 and brought over on regular basis after 01.01.2005. It is pursuant to such developments, petitioner was provided with G.P.F. number and the petitioner was continued to be a G.P.F. subscriber. It is while the matter stood thus, the opposite party no.6 issued a letter dated 10.04.2015 thereby cancelling the G.P.F. Account number in respect of the employees, who are continuing on contractual basis prior to 01.01.2005. Petitioner being aggrieved by such direction of the opposite party No.6, preferred the Original Application involved herein. On entertaining the Original Application, it appears by interim order the Tribunal stayed the operation of the instruction vide Annexure-A so far as the applicant is concerned. 5. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on reiteration of the factual background indicated hereinabove giving reference to the documents appended here to further taking support of the judgment of the Tribunal in Original Application No.98 of 2015 disposed of on 19.5.2017 confirmed by this Court in the case of State of Odisha & Others Vs. Sanjulata Sethy & Others in disposal of W.P.(C).No.22057 of 2019 and further being affirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court, attempted to justify the claim involved herein. Mr. Samantray, learned counsel further also submitted that Page 3 of 5 // 4 // in another development involving a judgment in similar situation being carried up to Hon’ble Apex Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court in disposal of a batch of SLPs including Special Leave Petition (C).No.23578 of 2012 and dismissal of the State’s plea vide batch of review cases including Review Petition (C) No. 2038 of 2013. Mr. Sahu further taking support of this judgment also to the case at hand, claimed above judgment also taken care of in the disposal of Original Application No.98 of 2015. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State taking this Court to the reason assigned in the counter affidavit in justification of the impugned order however did not dispute the position of law involving very same issue not only decided by the Tribunal in the above Original Application but also decided through the decision in Special Leave Petition (C).No.23578 of 2012 and Review Petition (C) No. 2038 of 2013. 7. Since the claim made here based on settled position of law, without entering into the factual aspect, this Court simply observes the Finance Department orders herein also impugned in the Original Application No.98 of 2015. The Tribunal after taking all the factual aspects involved herein and further taking into the developments through the above SLP(C) and the Review settling the position in disposal of Original Application No.98 of 2015, has come to hold the orders at Annexure-A also being impugned herein were set aside. For there is no dispute with regard to the position of law on this aspect and as has already been settled through the above judgment, this Court sets aside the orders at Annexure-A respectively and allows the application directing to maintain the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // position of the petitioner so far it relates to continuance in the G.P.F. Scheme from the date of her regularization. 8. The writ petition succeeds. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Page 5 of 5