Orissa High Court
Managobinda Mishra vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 21 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OAC) NO.1604 OF 2007
Managobinda Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr.P.K.Mohapatra, Adv.
-versus-
State of Orissa & ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr.S.P.Panda, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH
ORDER
Order 21.2.2022
No.
5. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to
the opposite parties to count his past service rendered in the Job-
Contract Establishment for the purpose of pension and pensionary
benefit within a stipulated period.
3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that similar matter had come up before this Court in O.J.C. No. 2405
of 1985 and after constitution of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal
the same was transferred to the Tribunal and registered as T.A. No.
11 of 1993. The said case was disposed of on 21.10.1994 by the
learned Tribunal by following the decisions of the apex Court and by
giving direction to the competent authority to count the past service
rendered by the petitioner in Job Contract Establishment towards
// 2 //
pension and pensionary benefit and after such orders were passed,
pension of the petitioner was directed to be calculated, drawn and
disbursed in his favour within two months from the date of receipt of
the copy of the judgment. The order passed in T.A. No. 11 of 1993
was challenged before the Apex Court by the State, which was
dismissed vide order dated 17.07.1995.
4. It is further contended that similar matter had also come up
before this Court in O.J.C. No. 2147 of 1991, which was decided on
24.03.1992 and this Court has considered the case of Job Contract
employees for regularization of service and for pension and
pensionary benefits. In O.A. No. 3020 (C) of 2 2003 (Nityananda
Biswal v. State of Orissa and others), the Tribunal vide order dated
04.01.2004 also directed that the period of the engagement of the
petitioner in job contract establishment should be taken into account
as qualifying service and accordingly his pension and other
pensionary benefits be revised and paid to the petitioner therein. The
order passed in O.A. No. 3020 (C) of 2003 was also challenged by
the State before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14244 of 2006. This
Court vide order dated 09.04.2014 dismissed the writ application
preferred by the state against the order passed by the Tribunal. The
state also preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) CC No. 12573 of
2015 against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14244 of
// 3 //
2006, which was dismissed by the apex Court vide order dated
13.07.2015.
5. In view of the above settled position of law, nothing remains
to be reconsidered by this Court. Accordingly the opposite parties
are directed to extend all such benefits in favour of the petitioner in
terms of the directions given by the Courts as mentioned above, as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months
from the date of communication of the certified copy/authenticated
copy of the order.
6. With the above observation/direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Biswanath Rath)
Judge
M.K.Rout
