Benudhar Pati vs State Of Odisha And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12920 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          WPC (OAC) No. 997 of 2004

            Benudhar Pati                        ....                                 Petitioner
                                                     M/s S. Mohanty and associates, Adv.
                                                  -Versus -
            State of Odisha and others           ....                        Opposite Parties




                    CORAM:
                     DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                                       ORDER

16.12.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel.

3. The petitioner has pleaded in paragraphs-6.8 and 6.9 of the writ petition to the following effect:

"6.8. That after hearing this, the applicant inquired about the matter and came to know that some of the office staff, i.e., employees of same settlement office are getting full pension by virtue of the court order. They are Mr. Bhagaban Pattnaik and Dukhishyam Panigrahi. The copy of the said Hon'ble Tribunal's judgment will be produced at the time of hearing.

6.9. That the said Bhagaban Pattnaik was retired from the applicant's office as a Serastadar. After his retirement, he was not given the full pension, so he filed a case in the Hon'ble High Court to grant him full pension by counting his total job-contract period of service. The said case was transferred to Hon'ble Tribunal from the Hon'ble High Court bearing T.A.

No.11 of 1993. This Hon'ble Tribunal heard the matter

in length and allowed the case of the said Bhagaban Pattnaik on 21.10.1994. Thereafter the State Government did not carry out the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal and preferred an appeal i.e. SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme court bearing SLP No.13916 of 1995. The said case filed by the State Government was dismissed on dated 17.07.1995. As it appear from the that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble Tribunal became law of the land and by virtue of that judgment, the said employee and others were given full pension by counting his job contract period for the purpose of full pension and other post retirement benefit."

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties and in paragraph-6, it has been stated as follows:-

"That as per averment in para:6.8, it is submitted that pensionary benefits as deserved by the petitioner has already been sanctioned."

5. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no reply has been given in the counter affidavit with regard to paragraph-6.9 of the writ petition and, thereby, the opposite parties are admitting such position.

6. Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel states that he may be granted some time so that he can verify the same and make further submission in the matter.

7. On his request, list after four weeks.

Ashok                                                 (Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
                                                           Judge