Orissa High Court
Dr. Laxminarayan Mahana vs State Of Odisha And Others on 26 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OA) No. 872 of 2015
Dr. Laxminarayan Mahana .... Petitioner
Mr. K.C. Sahu, Adv.
-Versus -
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
State Counsel
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
26.10.2022
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Originally, the case was filed in the Tribunal in Original
Application No.872 of 2015. On being transferred to this Court, the
same has been registered as WPC (OA) No. 872 of 2015. 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 Annexures-6 & 7 in respect of the
applicant by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and
discriminatory in nature by further directing that the
applicant is to be governed under the pre-amended O.C.S.
(Pension) Rules, 1992 and existing GPF(O) Rules, but not
under the new restructured defined pension scheme with all
consequential service benefits and also entitled to get the
GPF by subscribing the same as usual & pensioanry
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
BHMS Degree holder was selected in a duly constituted selection
committee and accordingly appointed as Homoeopathic Medical
Officer on contractual basis. While the petitioner was continuing as
such, by office order dated 10.09.2012 of the H&FW Deptt., the
service of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 26.12.2008 and by the
time of filing of the Original Application, the petitioner was
continuing as a regular employee. While the petitioner was continuing
on contractual basis, 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 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 16.02.2015 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-6 & 7 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.Sahoo further taking support of
this judgment also to the case at 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 and 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-6 & 7 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.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Ashok (Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
Judge
