Umakanta Padhy vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 8998 Ori

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                   W.P.(C) No. 19974 of 2016


            Umakanta Padhy                  ....               Petitioner

                                               Mr. D. Mishra, Advocate

                                       -Versus -
            State of Odisha and others         ....    Opposite Parties

                                                       Mr. S. Pattanaik,
                                                 Additional Government
                                                               Advocate

                      CORAM:
                        JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                                 ORDER

10.08.2023 Order No.

10. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3. The petitioner is the widow of one Umakanta Padhy (original petitioner) who was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 19.07.1966 in Patapur High School. After serving for 12 years, he retired from service on medical ground on 02.12.1978. It is stated that he submitted representations to the authority time and again for grant of retirement benefits including pension, but the same was not granted. Challenging the inaction of the authorities in this regard, he approached this Court by filing the present application with the following prayer:-

"It is therefore prayed that the writ be admitted LCR be called for and after hearing the counsel rule NISI be issued calling upon the opp. Parties to show cause as to why Annexure-1 dated 13.07.2001 & order dated 23.06.16 vide Annexure-3 shall not be quashed. If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the Rule NISI be made absolute and the Annexure-1, dated 13.07.2001 & Order dated 23.06.2016 vide Annexure-3 be quashed and appropriate direction/s order/s writ/s directing the opposite parties to release the pensionary benefits of the petitioner with effect from 1.4.82 along with other benefits to which he is entitled.

And appropriate order/orders, direction/directions, writ/writs, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant complete relief to the petitioner. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray."

4. During pendency of the writ petition said Umakanta Padhy (original petitioner) expired and has been substituted by the present petitioner, his widow.

5. Mr. Dayanidhi Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the impugned order under Annexure-3 whereby the claim of the original petitioner for grant of retirement benefits has been rejected on the ground that he had not completed twenty years of service as on 02.12.1978.

6. Mr. Mishra submits that this order runs contrary to the ratio decided by a division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhimasen Prusty and others vs. State of Orissa, reported in 1994(I) OLR 439 and the

case of Subarna Dibya and Others vs. State of Orissa and others, reported on 2005 (I) CLR (SC) 41 decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Relying upon said judgments Mr. Mishra would contend that the settled position of law is that irrespective of the date of retirement an employee is entitled to pension, if he has completed ten years of service. Mr. Mishra has in particular referred to paragraphs-19 and 20 of the judgment in Subarna Dibya (supra).

8. Mr. Suvashish Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submits that the petitioner's case is covered by the ratio of Subarna Dibya (supra) but opposes the same on the ground that the original petitioner had not approached the authorities in time and had only done so after pronouncement of judgment in Subarna Dibya (supra).

9. Since the basic issue as to whether a teacher retiring prior to coming into force of the 1981 Rules is illegible to receive pension or not has already been dealt with in detail and decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court and confirmed by the Apex Court, nothing further remains to be decided in the present writ petition, which is therefore disposed of by directing the concerned authorities to act in terms of the ratio decided in Subarna Dibya (supra) and to grant the necessary benefits to the petitioner within three

months.

9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge

B.C. Tudu

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 21-Aug-2023 12:10:51