The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.43049 of 2023 Pravakar Bhoi …. Petitioner Mr. S.K.Mishra,Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. N.Pratap, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 08.01.2024 Order No. 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 Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. 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, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to: i) ii) Admit the writ application; Call for the records; To quash the rejection order vide iii) letter dtd.07.07.2022 passed by the Government of Odisha Works Department Lokaseva Bhawan, Odisha Bhubaneswar (Opp. Party No.1) under Annexure-8 to the writ application iv) Direct to the Opposite Parties to grant pension and pensionary benefits under Old Pension scheme as the Orissa Civil Service per Rule-18(3) of // 2 // in (Pension)Rules-1992 taking into account his 36 years regular of service as DLR, work charged establishment as the date of 1st entry into Govt. service on 01.04.1985 as well as the G.A Department Resolution dtd.15.05.1995 under Annexure-3 in the light of the decision in the case of State of Orissa Vrs. Radheshyam Mohanta, in O.A. No.412 of 2008, which has been confirmed in W.P.(C) No. 12377 of 2009 and SLP(Civil) No.36038 of 2010 decided on 29.08.2017, State of Odisha vrs. Pitambar Sahoo in W.P.(C) No.24041 /2017, decided on 20.12.2017, which has been confirmed in SLP (C) Diary No.20806 /2018 and Chandra Nandi Vrs.State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.19550 of 2011 (decided on 3.2.2021) and Premananda Tripathy vrs. State of Odisha,W.P. (C) No.27950 of 2019 (decided on 3.2.2021) and Narusu Pradhan ,SLP No.22498/2012 decided by the Hon’ble Apex court and state of Orissa and others vrs. Jyostna Rani Patnaik and others, W.P.(C) No. 1534 of 2008, Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2019, as well as the benefits given to similarly situated persons vide Annexure-6 Series. And further be pleased to pass any other order(s) / direction(s) as would be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. Being aggrieved by inaction of the opposite parties in not counting the pass service of the petitioner while calculating the pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the petitioner, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6152 of 2022 wherein this Court vide order dated 09.03.2022, disposed of the writ application with a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of law laid down in Chandra Nandi V. State of Odisha, Abhaya Charan Mohanty V. State of Odisha as well as in the case of Narusu Pradhan. After disposal of the previous writ application the opposite parties vide order dated 7th July, 2022, under Annexure-8, have rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order under Annexure-8 the petitioner has approached this Court by filing // 3 // the present writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the law laid down by this Court in Bandhua Gochhayat V. State of Odisha in WPC(OAC) No.864 of 2018 reported in 2022 1 OLR 266 and Abhaya Charan Mohanty V. State of Odisha and others in WPC(OAC) No.3494 of 2013 decided on 14.07.2021. He further contended that since the petitioner was regularized in service before his retirement the law laid down by this Court in R.K. Jena V. State of Odisha with regard to grant of pensionary benefits is also applicable to the case of the petitioner. 6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that pursuant to the direction of this court in the earlier writ application the opposite parties have already considered the case of the petitioner and representation of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 7th July, 2022 under Anexure-8. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the opposite parties have not committed any legality in passing order under Annexure-8 to the writ Application. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that, since the case of the petitioner has already been considered and disposed of, there is no further scope to reconsider the same at this juncture. Accordingly it was prayed that the writ application is devoid of merit and the same should be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as materials on record, this Court observes that the petitioner was initially appointed on 01.04.1985. Thereafter, he was brought over to work charge establishment on 14.11.2011. A perusal of the service book annexed to the writ application, under Annexure-1, reveals that // 4 // the petitioner was brought over to the work charge establishment and posted as junior clerk-cum-typist in the scale of pay Rs.5,400/-, toRs.20,200/- with grade pay of Rs.1900/-. The noting in the service book of the petitioner reveals that he was brought over to the work charge establishment, and he has been extended with all benefits of a regular employee. Moreover, although the service book does not reveal that any formal order of regularization has been passed in favor of the petitioner, he has been extended the regular scale of pay attached to the regular post of junior clerk-cum-typist. Further taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is covered by judgment of this Court in Bandhua Gochhayat supra as well as Abhay Charan Mohanty supra and R.K. Jena supra, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the opposite parties to reconsider the case of the petitioner without being influenced by the order under Annexure-8. Further, while considering the case of the petitioner afresh, the Opposite Party No.1 shall take into consideration the law laid by this Court in the above noted judgments and the fact that the petitioner has been granted the regular scale of pay once he was brought over to the work charge establishment and was extended all the benefits as is due and admissible to the regular employees against the sanctioned post. In such view of the matter this Court further directs Opposite Party No.1 to explore as to whether the petitioner can be notionally regularized against a regular vacant post prior to his retirement from service and accordingly the service benefits as is due and admissible to the regular employees working in a regular vacant post be extended in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner is hereby directed to approach the Opposite Party No.1 along with certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. In the event the petitioner approaching the // 5 // Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove and dispose of representation of the petitioner by passing a final order within a period of two months from the date the petitioner approached this Opposite Party No.1. The final decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such decision. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Rubi ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Jan-2024 18:33:00