The Hon'ble Orissa High Court recently ruled that the Petitioner, who had served continuously as a work-charged employee since 1981, was entitled to regularization and pensionary benefits. The Court reasoned that denying these benefits was unjust, citing the Finance Department Resolution of 1965, which mandates regularization after five years of continuous service.
Brief Facts:
In the instant case, the Petitioner was initially engaged as an NMR employee and subsequently brought over to the work charged establishment. He continued working in this capacity until his retirement. After his retirement, the Petitioner sought to be regularized and receive pensionary benefits, which were denied by the government on the grounds of irregular appointment.
Therefore, this writ petition was filed to challenge the denial of regularization and pensionary benefits by the government.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was argued that denial to regularize violated constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 300-A. Despite there being 462 vacant posts eligible for regularization as of 2020, the Petitioner's representations were rejected arbitrarily and discriminatorily.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued as an NMR employee at the time of the 1997 Finance Department Resolution, could only be considered for regularization after eligible work-charged employees.
It was urged that the Finance Department Resolutions of 1965 and 1997 required specific conditions like seniority and suitability, which the Petitioner did not meet. Additionally, the Petitioner’s participation in the EPF scheme made him ineligible for other pensionary benefits.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon'ble Court noted that the Petitioner had continuously worked as a work-charged employee since 1981 and retired in 2022. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was entitled to regularization according to the Finance Department Resolution of 1965, which mandates regularization after five years of continuous service, and if no regular post is available, one should be created.
The Bench observed that denying regularization and subsequent pension benefits to the petitioner, who had served for decades, would be unjust. Therefore, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Respondents to regularize the Petitioner’s service.
The decision of the Court:
The Bench, noting the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the writ petition.
Case Title: Sarat Chandra Misha v. State of Odisha and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K Mohapatra
Case No.: WP(C) No. 133 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. M/S R.K Bose & A.K Parida
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Mr. N.K Praharaj
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
