The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29788 of 2024 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Lingaraj Nag & another …. Petitioners -Versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opp. Parties Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
: Mr.Sangram Jena, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD J U D G M E N T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing & judgment : 26.08.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J. First Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science vide order dated 14.09.2001. The second Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in History vide order dated 30.04.2003. Both of them have presented this common petition to call in question the order dated 16.09.2023 at Annexure-6 whereby the Deputy Controller of Accounts, Odisha has sent an intimation to the Accounts Officer of Department of Higher Education, Page 1 of 5 Bhubaneswar to the effect that the Petitioners are not eligible for allotment of new GPF Account numbers in view of FD Letter No.30447/F dated 18.07.2007. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argues that his clients have eligibility to the allotment of new GPF Account Numbers in view of Rule 4 read with its proviso of Odisha Aided Educational Institutions Employees’ General Provident Fund Rules, 1983 (in short, ‘1983 Rules’); other similarly circumstanced lecturers have already been accorded such Account Numbers and therefore, his clients cannot be treated with step motherly attitude at the hands of jurisdictional Opposite Parties. Lastly, he submits that the context of the Rule, being as clear as Gangetic waters, does not admit any interpretation. 3. After service of notice, official Opposite Parties, having entered appearance through the learned Additional Government Advocate, have filed their Counter resisting the petition. He contends that it is the policy of the State that only a class of employees are entitled to allotment of new GPF Account Numbers and that the Petitioners do not fall within that category and Page 2 of 5 therefore, no fault can be laid at the threshold of the officials, who have structured the impugned order rejecting the claim of the Petitioners for such allotment. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:- 4.1. The Petitioners have been working as Lecturers prior to 01.01.2005, going by their dates of appointment cannot be disputed. Under Rule 4 read with its proviso of the 1983 Rules, a right is created in favour of lecturers of the kind for the grant of new GPF Account Numbers. The context of Rule 4 is as under: “4. All temporary employee including probationers after a continuous service of one year, and all permanent employees shall subscribe to the Fund and on joining the Fund shall cease to contribute to Contributory Provident Fund or any other Fund. NOTE 1-A temporary employee who completes one year of continuous ’service during a month shall subscribe to the fund from his emoluments for the subsequent month. For example a temporary employee completing one year of continuous service on any day in May will be required to subscribe from his emoluments for June payable in July or at the end of June. NOTE 2-Temporary employees who have been appointed against regular vacancies and are likely to continue for more than a year may subscribe to Fund any time before completion of one year’s service. [Provided that these rules shall not apply to the employees appointed on or after the 1st day of January, 2005 to services Page 3 of 5 and posts in Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions either temporarily or permanently.]” Learned counsel for the Petitioners is more than justified in telling the Court that the Rule being as clear as crystal, it does not need any interpretation. The benefit of Rule extends to all those, who have been appointed prior to 01.01.2005. The proviso to said Rule needs to be treated as an exception to the Rule. The proviso excludes only employees, who have been appointed on or after 01.01.2005, i.e., the date on which this amendment to the Rule came into effect. Denying relief to the Petitioners cannot be sustained without manhandling to the Rules. 5. The contention of the learned AGA that in the FD Letter No.30447/F dated 18.07.2007, certain parameters have been prescribed and that Petitioners apparently do not fall into that and therefore, no relief can be accorded to them, is very difficult to agree with. The said letter (Annexure-7) is produced by the Petitioners at Annexure-7 and unnumbered 4th paragraph of the said letter is reproduced below:- “Now the A.G.(A&E), Orissa has brought to the notice of the Government that while sending the applications of the above category of employees to the A.G.(A&E), Orissa or Controller of Accounts, Orissa as the case may be, for allotment of G.PF. account number in their favour, concerned DDO’s are not in beating Page 4 of 5 the reason for applicability of GPF(O) Rules in respect of such employees The AG (A&F), Orissa has further pointed out that some of the DDO’s are sendingapplications of the new entrants to State Government Service for allotment of GP, account numbers in favour of such employces even through the existing GPF(O) Rules are not applicable in case of such employees joined in State Govcinment service on or after 1.1.2005. The above observation supports the case of the Petitioners as against that of the Opposite Parties. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds. A Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the inter-departmental communication dated 16.09.2023 at Annexure-6; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the Controller of Accounts, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.3 to allot new GPF Account Number to the Petitioners within a period of six (6) weeks keeping in view the observations hereinabove made. Default or delay shall be viewed seriously, if petitioners are driven to another legal battle. Now, no costs. Web copy of this judgment to be acted upon by all concerned. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 26th day of August, 2025/Basu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 26-Aug-2025 17:22:11 Dixit Krishna Shripad, Judge Page 5 of 5