Orissa High Court
Loda Anjali Kumari vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 16 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C)(OA) No.1795 of 2016
Loda Anjali Kumari .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.08.2022
Order No
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned counsel appearing
for O.P. No. 5.
3. Originally, the case was filed in the Tribunal in Original
Application No.1795 of 2016. On being transferred to this Court,
the same has been registered as W.P.C.(OA) No.1795 of 2016. The
petition involves the following prayer:
"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-7 & 8 in respect of
the applicant by declaring the same as illegal,
arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.
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
// 2 //
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."
4. Background involving the case is that the applicant being a ANM
Certificate Holder was selected in a duly constituted selection
committee and accordingly appointed as MPHW(F) on contractual
basis. While the Petitioner was continuing as such by Office Order
dtd.21.10.2006 of the Chief District Medical Officer, Balangir, 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
MPHW(F), State Government issued a notification dated
17.09.2005 introducing a new restructured 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 were
// 3 //
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 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 Annexure-7
& 8 so far as the applicant is concerned.
5. Mr. Sahu, 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
// 4 //
hand, claimed above judgment also taken care of in the disposal of
Original Application No.98 of 2015.
6. 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.
7. 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-7 & 8 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-7 & 8
respectively 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 her regularization.
8. The writ petition succeeds.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sneha
