The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OAC) No.4726 of 2015 Mamata Pradhan …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 28.02.2023
Decision
Order No 3. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel appearing for the Accountant General. 3. Originally, the case was filed in the Tribunal in Original Application No.4726 of 2015. On being transferred to this Court, the same has been registered as WPC(OAC)No.4726 of 2015. The petition involves the following prayer:- “In view of the facts and submissions mentioned in para- (6) above the applicant prays for the following relief(s):- (i) The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to admit the Original Application, // 2 // (ii) in nature by The Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to quash the impugned letter of the Respondent No.3 dated 13.01.2015 under Annexure-6 in respect of the applicants by declaring illegal, arbitrary and the same as discriminatory further is to be directing that the applicant governed under the pre-amended O.C.S (Pension) Rules, 1992 and existing GPF(O) Rules, but not under the new restructured defined all consequential service benefits and also entitled to get the GPF by subscribing the same as usual & pensionary benefits for the interest of justice. scheme with pension (iii) The Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass any order(s)/direction(s) as deems fit and proper for the interest of justice.” 4. Background involving the case is that the applicant being a MPHW (F) 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 dated 06.10.2005 of the Chief District Medical Officer, Ganjam, Berhampur, the service of the petitioner was regularized and by the time of filing of the Original Application, the petitioners were continuing as a regular employee. While the petitioner was continuing as a contractual MPHW (F), State Government issued a notification dated 17.09.2005 introducing a new re- structured 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 Page 2 of 5 // 3 // such circular, clarification appears to have been 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 respondent-opposite party no.3 vide letter dated 20.09.2011 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.3 issued a letter dated 13.01.2015 thereby cancelling the G.P.F. Account number in respect of the employees, who is continuing on contractual basis prior to 01.01.2005. Petitioner being aggrieved by such direction of the opposite party no.3, 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-9 series so far as the applicants are concerned. 5. Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on reiteration of the factual background Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 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 and 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. S. Mallik, learned counsel further also submitted that 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. S. Mallik further taking support of this 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 2013 and Review Petition (C) No.2038 of 2013. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 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-6 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-6 and allows the application directing to maintain the 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. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Page 5 of 5