Orissa High Court
Dhadi Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 8 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17955 of 2022
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
..................
Dhadi Mohanty .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s. Bhabni Sankar Tripathy 1(Advocate)
A. Tripathy (Advocate)
A. Sahoo (Advocate)
For Opp. Parties : Mr. R.N. Mishra
Addl. Govt. Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 22.07.2022 and Date of Order: 08.09.2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical)
Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to
quash the impugned order No.2562 dt.23.02.2021 of the Opp. Party No.1 with
// 2 //
a direction to the Opposite Parties to sanction pension and pensionary benefits
including gratuity in his favour under Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1992 in the light of the direction dt.03.09.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal
in OA No.168(C)/2015 read with decision of this Hon'ble Court dt.02.04.2018
rendered in OJC No.8149/2000 (State of Odisha vs. Hadu Gouda) in which it
was held that the Work Charged employees are to be regularized for one day
before retirement and be paid minimum pension by taking into account his
entire past services. The petitioner is also entitled to the benefit given to
similarly placed persons as per direction of this Hon'ble Court vide order
dated 14.07.2021 in WPC(OAC) No.3494 of 2013. Further similarly benefit
has been affirmed vide order dated 19.12.2011 in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010
and order dated 07.01.2012 in SLP in Civil Appeal No.22498 of 2010. The
petitioner further seeks a direction that his entire period of service rendered
under DLR and Work Charged establishments since 01.04.1982 to 14.01.2011
and under Regular establishment from 15.01.2011 to 28.02.2011 shall be
treated as qualifying services for computing the pensionary benefits in the
light of the decision in the case of Narusu Pradhan in O.A. No.1189(C) of
2006, which has been affirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010
vide order dated 19.12.2011 and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
SLP(C) CC No.22498 and the State of Punjab vrs. Harbanslal in SLP(C)
No.23578 of 2012 and judgment dated 26.08.2020 of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Civil Appeal No.3984 of 2020: V. Sukumaran vrs. State of Kerala and
others with all consequential benefits.
4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that pension
and pensionary benefits be granted under the old rule in the light of decision
in the case of State of Odisha vrs. Pitambar Sahoo, W.P.(C) No.24041 of
2017 (decided on 20.12.2017), which has been affirmed in SLP(C) Diary
No.30806 of 2018 and Chandra Nandi vrs. State of Odisha and others,
W.P.(C) No.19950 of 2011(decided on 03.02.2021) and Premananda
// 3 //
Tripathy vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.27950 of 2019 (decided on
03.02.2021) and Narusu Pradhan, SLP No.22498 of 2012, State of Orissa
and others vrs. Jyostna Rani Pattanaik and others, W.P.(C) No.1534 of
2008, State of Orissa vrs. Pitambar Mohapatra, W.P.(C) No.13483 of 2012
and State of Orissa vrs. Radheshyam Mohanta, W.P.(C) No.12377 of 2009,
which has been affirmed in SLP(C) No.36038 of 2020 as well as the benefits
given to similar persons.
5. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Petitioner-
Kedarnath Behera in W.P.(C) No.7085 of 2022 has been continuing as Amin
in work charged establishment of Petteru Irrigation Project in the district of
Koraput present in the district of Malkangiri w.e.f. 28.02.1979 and the
petitioner-Gopal Sethi has also been continuing as Jeep Driver in the work
charged establishment of the aforesaid irrigation project in the district of
Koraput presently in the district of Malkangiri w.e.f.31.30.1980.
6. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court in
WPC(OAC) No.3494 of 2013 by order dated 14.07.2021 analyzing various
points of law directed the State Government to regularize in establishment
post from the time, the petitioners completed five years of continuous service
in work charged establishment and the period from that time till the date of
retirement be counted towards the pension and direction was issued to grant
pensionary benefits to the employees. He further submits that in similar
matter Government had challenged the order of the learned tribunal under
Annexure-6 approached this Court in filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C)
No.5377 of 2010 and this Court by order dated 19.12.2011 referring the
judgment rendered in O.J.C. No.1162 of 1999 (State of Orissa vrs. Jhuma
Parida and others) and O.J.C. No.11028 of 1999 (State of Orissa vrs.
Sudarsan Sahoo and others) confirmed the order passed by the learned
tribunal and dismissed the writ application.
// 4 //
7. Heard learned counsel for both sides. Perused the materials available on
record. Learned counsel for the Petitioners relies upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of Abhaya Chanrana Mohanty vrs. State of Odisha,
WPC(OAC) No.3494 of 2013 disposed of on 14th July, 2021. In the said
case, the Petitioner, who was a work charged employee had claimed the
pensionary benefits after his retirement with retrospective effect. This Court
relying upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
No.21498 of 2012 thereby dismissing the State Government's Appeal and
confirming the order dated 19th December, 2011 of this Court passed in
W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010 in the case of one Narusu Pradhan vrs. State of
Odisha allowed the writ petition and granted pensionary benefits as prayed
for in that case.
8. Similarly, learned counsel for the Petitioner has also cited another order of
a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandra Nandi vrs. State of
Odisha and others : reported in 2014(I) OLR 734 and also Judgment of this
Court on 12.12.2019 in W.P.(C) No.9099 of 2016. In the said reported case,
this Court had given a direction to notionally regularize service of the
Petitioner prior to his superannuation from service and accordingly, calculated
the Petitioner's entitlement including the pensionary benefits.
9. So far the case of one Nansu Pradhan is concerned and which has been
referred to by this Court in Abhaya Charan Mohanty (supra), said Narusu
Pradhan had filed O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006 praying for retiral benefits.
Learned Tribunal allowed the retiral pensionary benefits in his favour vide
order dated 11th June, 2009. The order dated 19th June, 2009 was challenged
by the State Government before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010. This
Court dismissed the writ petition on 19th December, 2021 and confirmed the
order passed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the State Government
preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India bearing Civil
// 5 //
Appeal No.22498 of 2012. The said appeal was also dismissed on 7th
January, 2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India thereby confirming the
orders passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal as well as this
Court. Since the case of Narusu Pradhan is a case of work charged
employee, who had worked for more than five years in work charged
establishment had been allowed to receive pensionary benefits by virtue of
order passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, which was
ultimately confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the principle
laid down in that case has become a Law of the land as declared by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and is binding on this court while deciding
cases of similar nature. Therefore, it is no more open to the State Government
to take stand contrary to the principle finally approved by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India.
10. The only benefit the petitioners are intends to get their pensionary benefits
payable to the Petitioner i.e. required to be considered in the present writ
petition. Since the benefits have been granted to other similarly placed work
charged employees by notionally considering them as regular establishment
employee and as such the pensionary benefits have been given to them, the
same benefit needs to be extended to the Petitioner for services rendered by
him under the State Government for several decades continuously that too on
payment of a paltry amount every month. The whole objective of the pension
scheme is to support an employee and his family after retirement which is in
recognition of his relentless service to the Govt. and such benefits are
provided under the Rules on humanitarian considerations. This aspect of the
matter was not taken into account by the Opp. Party No. 1 while passing he
impugned order.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petitions
are allowed and the impugned order dt.23.02.2021 of O.P. No. 1 in Annexure-
// 6 //
6 is quashed Opposite Parties are directed to grant similar benefits to the
Petitioners as has been done in the case of Narusu Pradhan vide order dated
11th June, 2009 passed in O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006. The Petitioners are
directed to appear before the Opposite Party No.4 along with certified copy of
this order and all other relevant documents and records for the processing of
his claim. The Opposite Party No.4 upon receipt of certified copy of this order
shall calculate and pay the benefits payable to the Petitioner, particularly his
pensionary benefits, within a period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, both the writ petitions are
allowed. There shall no order as to cost.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 08th of September, 2022/Sneha
