Orissa High Court
Rashmi Rani Jena vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 16 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.C(OAC) No.1716 of 2016
Rashmi Rani Jena .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.08.2022
Order No
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Ms. Bidyut Lata Mohanty, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. S. Patra, learned
counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.5.
3. Originally, the case was filed in the Tribunal in
Original Application No.1716(C) of 2016. On being
transferred to this Court, the same has been registered as
WPC(OAC) No. 1716 of 2016. The petition involves the
following prayer:
"In view of the facts and submissions mentioned in para-(6) above the
applicant prays for the following relief(s):
(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to admit the Original Application,
(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash the impugned order
under Annexure-6 in respect of the applicant by declaring the same as
illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.
// 2 //
(iii) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to further declare that the
applicant is to be governed under the old O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992
and existing GPF(O) Rules but not under the new restructured defined
pension scheme with directing for GPF deduction from his salary on
regular basis as usual with all consequential service benefits for the
interest of justice.
(iv) The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass any order(s)/
direction(s) as deems fit and proper for the interest of justice."
3. Background involving the case is that the applicant
being a diploma holder in Nursing and midwifery was
selected in a duly constituted selection committee and
accordingly appointed as a Staff Nurse on contractual
basis. While the petitioner was continuing as such, by
office order dated 13.5.2009 of the Chief District Medical
Officer, Koraput, the service of the petitioner was
regularized and by the time of filing of the Original
Application, the petitioner was continuing as a regular
employee. While the petitioner was continuing as a
contractual Pharmacist, State Government issued a
notification dated 17.09.2005 introducing a new re-
structured defined contribution pension scheme for the new
entrants in the State Government service with effect from
01.01.2005. While matter stood above, there arose some
doubt in the matter of implementation of such circular,
clarification appears to have been issued to all Departments
of the Government vide intimation dated 04.04.2007
indicating therein that the cases of employees would be
governed in terms of OCS Pension Rule, 1992 and existing
GPF(O) Rules. It is after such clarification is issued, the
respondent-opposite party no.3 vide letter dated
20.09.2011 issued instruction to all Chief District Medical
Officers of the State directing therein for deduction of G.P.F.
deduction of the staff under their control and those who
// 3 //
were appointed on contractual basis prior to 01.01.2005
and brought over on regular basis after 01.01.2005. It is
pursuant to such developments, petitioner was provided
with G.P.F. number and the petitioner was continued to be
a G.P.F. subscriber. It is while the matter stood thus, the
opposite party no.5 issued a letter dated 18.12.2004
thereby cancelling the G.P.F. Account number in respect of
the employees, who are continuing on contractual basis
prior to 01.01.2005. Petitioner being aggrieved by such
direction of the opposite party no.5, preferred the Original
Application involved herein. On entertaining the Original
Application, it appears by interim order the Tribunal stayed
the operation of the instruction vide Annexures-6 so far as
the applicant is concerned.
4. Ms. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner on reiteration of the factual background
indicated hereinabove giving reference to the
documents appended here to further taking support
of the judgment of the Tribunal in Original Application
No.98 of 2015 disposed of on 19.5.2017 confirmed by this
Court in the case of State of Odisha & Others Vs.
Sanjulata Sethy & Others in disposal of W.P.(C).No.22057
of 2019 and further being affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court,
attempted to justify the claim involved herein. Mr. Sahu,
learned counsel further also submitted that in another
development involving a judgment in similar situation
being carried up to Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in disposal of a batch of SLPs including Special
Leave Petition (C).No.23578 of 2012 and dismissal of the
State's plea vide batch of review cases including Review
Petition (C) No. 2038 of 2013. Mr. Sahu further taking
support of this judgment also to the case at hand, claimed
// 4 //
above judgment also taken care of in the disposal of
Original Application No.98 of 2015.
5. Mr. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the State taking this Court to the reason assigned in the
counter affidavit in justification of the impugned order
however did not dispute the position of law involving very
same issue not only decided by the Tribunal in the above
Original Application but also decided through the decision
in Special Leave Petition (C).No.23578 of 2012 and Review
Petition (C) No. 2038 of 2013.
6. Since the claim made here based on settled position of
law, without entering into the factual aspect, this Court
simply observes the Finance Department orders herein also
impugned in the Original Application No.98 of 2015. The
Tribunal after taking all the factual aspects involved herein
and further taking into the developments through the above
SLP(C) and the Review settling the position in disposal of
Original Application No.98 of 2015, has come to hold the
orders at Annexure-6 also being impugned herein were
set aside. For there is no dispute with regard to the position
of law on this aspect and as has already been settled
through the above judgment, this Court sets aside the
orders at Annexure-6 and allows the application directing
to maintain the position of the petitioner so far it relates to
continuance in the G.P.F. Scheme from the date of his
regularization.
7. The writ petition succeeds.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
// 5 //
sangita
