The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.30360 of 2023 Trilochan Mangaraj …. Petitioner Mr. L.N. Pattanaik, Advocate -versus- Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt., Rural Development Dept., BBSR & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. N.K.Praharaj, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 05.10.2023 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. Perused the Writ Petition. 3. The Petitioner has filed the above noted writ application with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to sanction pensionary benefits to the Petitioner. 4. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the Petitioner had joined in the Office of the Chief Engineer “DANIDA” project on 01.02.1983 as Junior Clerk under Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) and continued there till 31.03.1993. Thereafter, the Petitioner was brought to the Office of Executive Engineer, RWS & S Division, Jajpur at Chandikhol. After abolition of “DANIDA” project from 01.04.1993 // 2 // the Petitioner worked as Junior Clerk (NMR) in different sections of R.W.S & S under the Office of Executive Engineer R.W.S & S Division, Jajpur at Chandikhol. He also continued as Junior Clerk (NMR) in the Office of Junior Engineer, Badchana Section till 03.05.1994. The Assistant Executive Engineer, R.W.S. & S Sub- Division, Jajpur transferred the Petitioner to the Bari Section where he continued as such till 31.01.2019 i.e., his date of retirement. It is also available in the body of the Writ Petition that list of NMR employees was prepared for bring the said employees to work charge establishment wherein the serial number of the Petitioner is 37. 5. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the learned Tribunal in O.A.No.70(B) of 1997 by order dated 03.05.1999 analyzing various points of law directed the State Government to regularize in a establishment post from the time he completed five years of continuous service in work charged establishment and the period from that time till the date of retirement be counted towards the pension and direction was issued to grant pensionary benefit to the employees. He further submits that the Government challenging the order of the learned Tribunal approached this Court by filing OJC No.13552 of 1999 and this Court by order dated 01.05.2001 referring the judgment rendered in OJC No.1162 of 1999 (State of Orissa-vrs.-Jhuma Parida and others) and OJC No.11028 of 1999 (State of Orissa Vrs. Sudarsan Sahoo and others) confirmed the order passed by the learned Tribunal and dismissed the writ application. After dismissal of the writ application, the Government has brought the employee into regular establishment for the purpose of granting pensionary benefit. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties denied all the allegations made by the // 3 // Petitioner in the Writ Petition. It is stated by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the claim of the Petitioner is a stale claim. Further, it is stated 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. 7. Heard learned counsel for both sides. Perused the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Abhaya Chanrana Mohanty vrs. 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 confirmed 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 vrs. 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 Chandra Nandi vrs. 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 Narsu Pradhan is concerned, 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 // 4 // 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 stand contrary to the principle finally approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 10. The only benefit the petitioner is to get 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 // 5 // 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 Pradhan vide order dated 11th June, 2009 passed in O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006. The Petitioner is directed to appear before the Opposite Party No.4 along with certified copy of this order and all other relevant documents and records for the processing of his claim. The Opposite Party No.4 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 certified copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed. There shall no order as to cost. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: Ex-A.R.-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Oct-2023 10:40:35