Orissa High Court
Sanjukata Mishra And Others vs Commissioner-Cum-Secretary To on 17 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) (OAC) No.1173 OF 2018
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Sanjukata Mishra and others .... Petitioners
-versus-
Commissioner-cum-Secretary to .... Opposite Parties
Govt., Commerce and Transport
(Transport) Department, Odisha and
another
Appeared in this case:
For Petitioners : Mr. G.R. Sethi, Mr. J.K. Digal
and Ms. B.K. Pattnaik
Advocate for Petitioners
For Opposite Parties : None
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
JUDGMENT
17.12.2021
A.K. Mohapatra, J.
1. The sole grievance of the Petitioner is that the Opposite
Party-Authorities are not releasing the arrear service benefits as
per the statement under Annexure-4 to the Applicants, Petitioners
herein. The original application was filed by one Sananta Kumar
Mishra, claiming the aforesaid benefits.
// 2 //
2. During pendency of the application before the Orissa
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, the aforesaid
Original Applicant has died leaving behind his legal heirs who
have been substituted in place of the deceased original applicant
and they are the petitioners in this writ petition.
3. The case of the Original Applicant is that he was having
higher qualification and as such was duly selected following due
procedure of selection in the State Transport Service (S.T.S.) as a
Conductor. Initially the original applicant joined as a conductor
on 30th June, 1971. While continuing as such, he was deputed to
Odisha State Road Transport Corporation (O.S.R.T.C.) on 15th
May, 1974. Thereafter he was promoted as Assistant Station
Master (A.S.M.), then Station Master (S.M.) and Senior Station
Master (S.S.M.).
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that
the Original Applicant had never opted for permanent absorption
in O.S.R.T.C. As such, while continuing as an employee of
erstwhile S.T.S. in the Corporation, he had retired from the
// 3 //
service as Senior Station Master, w.e.f. 31st March, 2010 on
attaining the age of superannuation.
5. It was further submitted that on repeated approach by the
Original Applicant to the Opposite Party No.2, the O.S.R.T.C.
vide its letter dated 30th August, 2010 requested the Opposite
Party No.1 for release of pensionary benefits of the original
applicant saying therein that he is a temporary government
employee of the erstwhile S.T.S. and was on deputation to the
Corporation previously. In the said letter it was further stated that
there is no outstanding against the Original Applicant to be
recovered from his gratuity. Thereafter, Government vide its letter
dated 1st November, 2010 (Annexure-3) wrote to the Accountant
General (A&E), Bhubaneswar for sanction of final pension to the
Original Applicant and the Original Applicant started receiving
the pension and pensionary benefits in the revised scale of pay.
6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the District Transport Manager (A), O.S.R.T.C.,
Bhubaneswar, vide letter dated 26th March, 2011 written to the
Establishment Officer, O.S.R.T.C., Bhubaneswar regarding
// 4 //
fixation of arrear pay of the Original Applicant with effect from
1st January, 1996 till the date of his retirement. The Original
Applicant during his life time submitted several representations to
the Opposite Parties, vide Annexure-5, requesting them to release
his arrear amount. But to his misfortune, no action was taken on
such representation of the Petitioner, which compelled the
Original Applicant to approach learned Tribunal by filing O.A.
No.1173(C) of 2018.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further draws attention
of this Court to the order of the learned Tribunal dated 7th
November, 1998 passed in O.A. Nos.2530, 2647 and 2648 of
1997 by different persons. It is stated that identical issues were
involved in the said OAs. Learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal
disposed of those applications by holding that the Applicant was a
government servant working on deputation in O.S.R.T.C. and
further directed to release pensionary benefits and other
admissible dues in favour of the Applicant in the aforesaid
Original Applications.
// 5 //
8. The aforesaid order of the learned Orissa Administrative
Tribunal was challenged before this Court in O.J.C. No.8217 of
1999 by the State of Orissa, represented by the present Opposite
Party No.1. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 7th
August, 2002 dismissed the writ application holding that the same
is devoid of any merit. It is further contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by a Division
Bench of this court was assailed by the State by filing SLP before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further submits that the SLP has also been dismissed.
Therefore the order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal
in the case of Bhakta Narayan Upadhyaya has attained finality.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that
the claim of the Petitioner is squarely covered under the above
note case as Petitioner stands in similar footing with Bhakta
Narayan Upadhya.
10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and after
perusal of the records and pleadings of the parties, this court is of
the considered view that if fact the petitioner's case is similar to
// 6 //
the above referred case and he is entitled to get the benefits as has
been given to the petitioner in the above noted case.
11. In such view of the matter, the present writ petition is
being disposed of with a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to
consider the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the aforesaid
decision of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal for payment of
arrear dues as mentioned under Annexure-4 within a period of
three months from the date of production of a certified copy of
this order by the Petitioner along with a copy of the statement
filed along with the present case and marked as Annexure-4. Any
decision taken in the matter shall be communicated to the
Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of such
decision.
(A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
U.K. Sahoo/PA-cum-Secy.
