Tanu Chandra Naik vs State Of Odisha And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5555 Ori

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              WPC (OA) No.2844 of 2015

Tanu Chandra Naik                        .....                                         Petitioner
                                                                     Mr. I. Sahoo, Advocate
                                       Vs.
State of Odisha and others              .....                                 Opposite Parties
                                                                                State Counsel
               CORAM:
                   DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                                 ORDER

14.10.2022

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite parties to sanction pension and other pensioanry benefits to the petitioner after regularizing his service on completion of 10 years of service under work charged establishment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similar benefit has been extended to one Narusu Pradhan. As such the petitioner having stood in similar footing, he is entitled to grant all the benefits.

4. Learned State Counsel for the State contended that the petitioner has already retired from service. He further contended that the claim of the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law.

5. It is contended that one Narusu Pradhan, a similar circumstanced person like the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 1189 (C) of 2006 praying for retrial benefits. The Tribunal allowed the retrial pensionary benefits in his favour vide order dated 11.06.2009, which was challenged by the State before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5377 of 2010. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 19.12.2011 and confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter against the order passed by this Court, the State has preferred SLP in Civil Appeal No. 22498 of 2012, the same was also dismissed on 07.01.2013.

6. In that view of the matter, the relief claimed by the petitioner is

fully covered by the judgment of the Tribunal passed in the case of Narusu Pradhan, which has been confirmed by this Court as well as the apex Court. Thus the petitioner, having stood in similar footing, is entitled to get the benefits which have been extended to Narusu Pradhan and all the differential benefits and consequential benefits, as due and admissible to him, shall be granted to him in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order.

7. With the above observation & direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

                                         (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
Arun                                           JUDGE