The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.32524 of 2024 Kalia Behera ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Ms. B.Sahu, A.G.A. Mr. S.K.Patra, Standing Counsel for AG, Odisha -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Engineer-in-chief, Water Resources 3) Addl. Chief Engineer, V.n. Basin, Paralakhemundi 4) Superintending Engineer, Rayagada Irrigation Div 5) Secretary To Govt, Of Odisha, Finance Dept 6) Accountant General
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 12.02.2025 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 AG 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 prayed, therefore that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to; Admit and allow the writ petition and; Page 1 of 4. i) i) ii) in in principles to account his Direct the opp. parties to sanction pension and pensionary benefits under the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 by counting so much of past service rendered in work charged establishment taking initial appointment 15.03.1985 under the Govt. of Odisha as has been granted to similarly placed employees in the light of the Pitambar decided Mohapatra,O.A.No. 3574(c)/2011, which has been affirmed in W.P.(c) No. 13483/2012 vide order dt. 14.9.2017 and Pitambar Sahoo, O.A.No. 4189(c) of 2013, decided on 18.4.2017, which has been affirmed in W.P.(c) No, 24041 of 2017 , decided vide order dt, 20.12.2017 as well as Apex court in SLP(c) Diary No. 30806/2018 decided vide order dt. 10.09.2018 and Sarbeswar Bhujabal, (O.A.No. 606/2015), which has been affirmed vide order dt. 15.11.2019 in W.P.(c) No.7680/2019, and Hon’ble Supreme court in SLP(c) No.7541 of 2020, decided on 31.10.2022 , Narusus Pradhan vrs. State in O.A.No.1189(c)/2006, which has been affirmed by in W.P.(c) No. 5377/2010 and SLP(c) cc No. 22498/2012 and Chandra Nandi v. State of Orissa, W.P.(C) No. 19550/2011, which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme court vide order dt. 06.05.2022 in SLP(c) No.21180/2021 within a stipulated period of time.” Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as would be deemed fit and proper; 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially appointed on 15.03.1985 in the post of Khalasi by the Superintending Engineer, Southern Minor Irrigation Circle, Berhampur on NMR 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 Work Charge establishment. Thereafter his services 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 Page 2 of 4. Notification dated 15.05.1997. On 01.10.2009, the Petitioner was brought over to the Work Charged establishment. Finally, the Petitioner submitted a representation before the Opposite parties for regularization of his service. Finally on 30.12.2022 the service of the Petitioner was regularized as per the decision of the Government in the post of Khalasi (Group-D). Finally, the Petitioner was retired from service on 31.12.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Khalasi. 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 both as NMR as well as his service rendered in the Work Charged establishment. 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 MMR, thereafter brought over to Work Charged establishment and finally, his service was regularized shall be Page 3 of 4. considered for payment of pensionary benefit by taking into consideration as how much period of service rendered in Work charged and NMR establishment, 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 calculate the minimum qualifying service period of the Petitioner taking the shortfall period from the service period of the Petitioner as work Charged employee/NMR 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 10 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. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Feb-2025 11:17:15 Page 4 of 4.