Orissa High Court
Sarat Chandra Behera vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 9 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No. 4746 of 2011
Sarat Chandra Behera ..... Petitioner
Mr. N. P. Patra, Advocate
- Versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties
Mr. M. Balabantaray,
Standing Counsel for the State
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
09.08.2021
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. S. P. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. M. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash
the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by opposite party no.3 in
Annexure-4 and to issue direction to the opposite parties to grant
pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner declaring
him as a regular establishment employee, by following the ratio
decided in Annexures-5 and 6.
Mr. S. P. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner initially joined as a carpenter and
was brought to the work charged establishment on 16.07.1981
and continued to discharge the duties assigned to him. On
attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on
31.03.2003. Therefore, in view of the resolution no. 4419 dated
22.01.1965 of the Finance Department of the Government of
Odisha and the judgment of the apex Court in SLP No. 11929-
930 of 1998, the petitioner is entitled to get retirement benefits by
regularization of his service. It is further contended that a
similarly situated person, namely, Duryodhan Mohanty had filed
O.A. No. 70 (B) of 1997 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal,
which was disposed of vide order dated 03.05.1999 directing the
opposite parties to regularize him in an establishment post from
the time he completed five years continuous service in work
charged establishment and the period from that time till date of
retirement be counted towards the pension and further directed
to grant pensionary benefit to the employees. The said order of
the tribunal was challenged before this Court by the State
authorities by filing OJC No. 13552 of 1999 and this Court, by
order dated 01.05.2001, relying upon the judgment passed in
OJC No. 1162 of 1999 (State of Orissa v. Jhuma Parida and
others) and OJC No. 11028 of 1999 (State of Orissa v. Sudarsan
Sahoo & others), confirmed the order passed by the tribunal and
dismissed the writ petition filed by the State and after dismissal
of the writ petition said Duryodhan Mohanty was brought to the
regular establishment and granted the benefits as due and
admissible to him. It is further submitted that the petitioner,
having stood in the same footing, should be extended with same
benefits at par with Duryodhan Mohanty, in view of the judgment
of the apex Court in SLP No. 11929-930 of 1998.
Mr. M. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the State, after the brief was transferred to this Court, though
had taken time on 25.06.2021 to file counter affidavit, but the
same has not been filed.
However, considering the contention raised by the parties
and after going through the materials available on record, this
Court finds that the petitioner was retired from service on
31.03.2003 and in the meantime more than 18 years have passed
and, as such, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition in
the year 2011 and in the meantime 10 years have passed, but no
counter affidavit has been filed by the State. Therefore, keeping in
view the limited grievance of the petitioner that as he was
continuing as work charged employee, his service should have
been regularized after completion of five years in the work
charged establishment and he should have been granted benefit
as due and admissible at par with Duryodhan Mohanty,
pursuant to the order dated 03.05.1999 passed by the tribunal in
O.A. No. 70(B) of 1997, which has been confirmed by order dated
01.05.2001 passed by this Court in OJC No. 13552 of 1999.
In view of such position, this writ petition is disposed of
directing the opposite parties to extend the benefits as due and
admissible to the petitioner in terms of the decision of the apex
Court in SLP No. 11929-930 of 1998, since the petitioner stands
in similar footing with Duryodhan Mohanty, as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of this order.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation
are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print
out of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with
certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in
the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25th
March, 2020, as modified by Court's notice no. 4798 dated 15th
April, 2021.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
GDS
JUDGE
