Court in HarbansLal v. The State of Punjab and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.27982 of 2024 Bhubaneswar Giri ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr.Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. –
Legal Reasoning
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing Counsel for A.G., Odisha. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 17.02.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel for A.G. Odisha. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to; (i) Direct the opp. parties to sanction pension and pensionary benefits under Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 by counting so much of past service rendered as Cook-cum-Attendant under the state Govt. along with regular service in the light of the principles decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Page 1 of 4. Court in HarbansLal v. The State of Punjab and others (CWP No.2371 of 2010, decided on 31.8.2010) which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex court in SLP(c) No.23578 of 2012 (SLP(C) CC No.17901 of 2011) disposed of on 30.7.2012 (State of Punjab and others vrs. HarbansLal) and also in the case of JeewanLata v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.10238 of 2017 judgment dt. (O&M) decided on 10.05.2019 and 26.08.2020 of the Apex court in Civil Appeal No.3984 of 2010; V. Sukumaranvrs. State of Kerala and others and AmarkantRaivrs. State of Bihar & others reported in (2015) 5 SC 265 and the decision of this Hon’ble court in W.P.(C) No.15853/2012, 15856/2012 and 1471/2013, disposed of vide order dt. 24.4.2013, which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in SLP© No.35462-35464 of 2014; (ii) Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as would be deem fit and proper in the bonafied interest of justice.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially appointed on 24.12.1989 in the post of Cook- cum-Attendant by the District Welfare Officer, Keonjharon temporary basis. Thereafter, the Petitioner continued to service uninterruptedly. When the Petitioner was continuing, the Notification of the Finance Department dated 15.05.1997 had come into force. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of such Notification, the Petitioner should have been brought over to the regular establishment. Thereafter his services should have been regularized as has been provided in the Resolution dated 15.05.1997. However, the same was not done by the authority by deviating the Notification dated 15.05.1997. On 24.03.2017, the Petitioner was brought over to the regular establishment. Finally, the Petitioner submitted a representation before the Opposite parties for regularization of his service. Finally on 24.03.2017 the service of the Petitioner was regularized as per the decision of the Government in Page 2 of 4. the post of Attendant (Group-D). Finally, the Petitioner was retired from service on 31.08.2024 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Attendant. In view of the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.1 be directed to pay the pensionary benefit to the Petitioner taking into consideration the past service rendered by the Petitioner to make him eligible for pension as the service rendered by him in the department for long period. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the retirement benefit as well as the pensionary benefit as is due and admissible to the Petitioner. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, contended that since the Petitioner does not have the qualifying service period, he is not entitled to pensionary benefit. Accordingly, the authorities have not considered the case of the Petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit. However, with regard to payment of retiral dues, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the amount as is due ad admissible to the Petitioner has already been paid to the Petitioner on his superannuation from service. Accordingly it was submitted that the Writ Petition was devoid of merit and the same be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful examination of the background facts of the present case and keeping in view the well settled position of law that once an employee who was working initially as DLR, thereafter brought over to temporary status and finally, his service was regularized shall be considered for payment of pensionary benefit by taking into consideration as how much period of service rendered in temporary status and Page 3 of 4. DLRestablishment, calculate the minimum qualifying period of service for grant of pensionary benefit. Such a proposition of law as has been propounded by this Court has already been accepted by many judgments of this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner in the event the Opposite Parties come to a conclusion that the case of the Petitioner is covered under the judgments referred to hereinabove and the Petitioner is entitled such benefits, then the Opposite Parties shall do well to calculate the minimum qualifying service period of the Petitioner taking the shortfall period from the service period of the Petitioner as temporary status employee/DLR to calculate the minimum qualifying service period, the benefit which is due and admissible to the Petitioner on the basis of his last pay drawn accordingly, the same be sanctioned and disbursed to the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order. In the event, the Petitioner though is getting any other pensionary benefit, the same shall be surrendered before the Government. Any decision taken be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days of taking such decision. 7. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Debasis Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 18-Feb-2025 15:22:57 ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Page 4 of 4.