Orissa High Court
Sovan Kumar Dash & Ors vs Unknown on 13 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No.11008 of 2018
Sovan Kumar Dash & Ors. ..... Petitioners
Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate
State of Odisha and Anr. Vs.
..... Opposite Parties
Mr.A.K. Mishra, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
13.10.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing
along with Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for opposite parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction
to the opposite parties to take into consideration the period of
service of the petitioners as Ad hoc Judges of the Fast Track
Courts for determination of their pension and other retiral benefits
as per the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 and to give
to them all the service benefits accrued during the period of
service as Ad hoc Judges of the Fast Track Courts and protect the
scale of pay by fixing their salary in the scale last drawn by them
or accrued on 01.02.2013 prior to their regularization in the posts
of regular cadre District Judge and further to consider their
appointments for the existing vacancies in the regular cadre of
direct District Judge of the year 2012, in view of directions of the
apex Court in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (Transfer Case
(Civil) No.22 of 2001) instead of newly created posts and to place
them in correct order or seniority in the civil list with all the
consequential benefits.
4. Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners contended that the period of service rendered by the
petitioners as Ad hoc Judges in the Fast Track Courts should be
taken into consideration for determination towards pensionary
benefit and other benefits as per Orissa Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1992. To substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon
the judgments of the apex Court in Mahesh Chandra Verma v.
State of Jharkhand, AIR 2018 SC 2924 and Kumari C. Yamini v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, (2019) 10 SCALE 834. So far as the
claim of pay protection is concerned that has not been decided by
the apex Court.
5. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for opposite parties contended that since the claim of
pensionary benefit has been covered by the judgments of the apex
Court, direction may be issued to calculate and pay the same in
accordance with law.
6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for
the parties and after going through the records, it appears that
admittedly the petitioners were initially joined as Ad hoc Judges in
the Fast Track Courts and pursuant to judgment of the apex Court
in Brij Mohan Lal (supra), since they opted for regularization
they appeared in the written examination and on being qualified,
they are allowed to continue as Additional District Judges in the
regular cadre. But here question arises whether the period of
services rendered by them as Ad hoc Judges in the Fast Track
Courts can be counted for pensionary benefit. This question is no
more res integra in view of judgments of the apex Court in
Mahesh Chandra Verma and Kumari C. Yamini (supra). The
period of past services rendered as Ad hoc Judges in the Fast
Track Court should be taken into consideration for determination
of pensionary benefit in terms of the judgment of the apex Court
as mentioned above. So far as seniority is concerned, the same has
also been granted to the petitioners.
7. With the above observation & direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Alok/Subhasmita (G. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
