Orissa High Court
Tarashankar Moharana vs State Of Odisha And Others on 18 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.16185 of 2023
Tarashankar Moharana .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. T. Pattanaik, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 18.05.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel.
3. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the
Opposite Parties to count his past service rendered in the Job-Contract
Establishment for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefit within
a stipulated period.
4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
similar matter has come up before this Court in O.J.C. No. 2405 of
1985 and after constitution of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal the
same was transferred to the Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 11 of
1993. The said case was disposed of on 21.10.1994 by the learned
Tribunal by following the decisions of the Apex Court and by giving
direction to the competent authority to count the past service rendered
by the Petitioner in Job Contract Establishment towards pension and
pensionary benefit and after such orders were passed, pension of the
Petitioner was directed to be calculated, drawn and disbursed in his
// 2 //
favour within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the
judgment. The order passed in T.A. No. 11 of 1993 was challenged
before the Apex Court by the State, which was dismissed vide order
dated 17.07.1995.
5. It is further contended that similar matter has also come up
before this Court in O.J.C. No. 2147 of 1991, which was decided on
24.03.1992 and this Court has considered the case of Job Contract
employees for regularization of service and for pension and pensionary
benefits. In O.A. No. 3020 (C) of 2003 (Nityananda Biswal v. State of
Orissa and others), the Tribunal vide order dated 04.01.2004 also
directed that the period of the engagement of the Petitioner in job
contract establishment should be taken into account as qualifying
service and accordingly his pension and other pensionary benefits be
revised and paid to the Petitioner therein. The order passed in O.A. No.
3020 (C) of 2003 was also challenged by the State before this Court in
W.P.(C) No. 14244 of 2006. This Court vide order dated 09.04.2014
dismissed the writ application preferred by the state against the order
passed by the Tribunal. The State also preferred Special Leave to
Appeal (C) CC No. 12573 of 2015 against the order passed by this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 14244 of 2006, which was dismissed by the apex
Court vide order dated 13.07.2015.
6. Additionally learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
W.P.(C) No.21611 of 2011 (All Orissa Settlement and Consolidation
Non-Gazetted Technical Officers Association, Dhenkanal approached
this Court challenging the order passed in O.A. No.3665 (C) of 2001
dated 10.03.2011 by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack
Bench, Cuttack. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the
respective parties by taking into consideration the order passed in T.A.
No.11 of 1993 dated 21.10.1994 in the other related matters including
// 3 //
the judgment in (Nityananda Biswal v. State of Orissa and others)
came to a conclusion that the position of law is well settled and nothing
remains to be decided in that case. Accordingly, order passed by the
Tribunal is set aside and accordingly the Opposite Parties were directed
to extend all such benefits to all the members of the Petitioners
association in terms of the direction given by the Court. The said order
dated 19.04.2022 passed by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.21611
of 2011 was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State of
Orissa by filing SLP (Civil) Diary No.(s) 36299/2022. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsel for the State-appellant
was pleased to dismiss the SLP. Therefore, the order passed by the
Division Bench in W.P.(C) 21611 of 2022 has attained finality.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, on the
other hand, opposes the prayer made in the Writ Petition by the
Petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government
Advocate that in view of the amendment to Rule 18 i.e. after inception
of sub-Rule-6 to Rule 18, the Petitioner is not eligible to get pension.
He further contended that the amendment of the Rule had not been
taken note of by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
delivering the judgment in Nityananda Biswal as well as All Orissa
Settlement and Consolidation Non-Gazetted Technical Officers
Association, Dhenkanal case. He further relies upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Yudhisthir Padhee -v.- State of Odisha,
which has taken note of the aforesaid amendment.
8. In view of the above settled position of law, nothing remains to
be reconsidered by this Court. Accordingly the Opposite Party No.1 is
hereby directed to consider the representation of the Petitioner under
Annexure-4 and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a
period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of
// 4 //
this order. In the event the Opposite Party No.1 comes to a conclusion
that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit claimed by him and is
covered by the judgments referred herein above, then such benefit be
sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner within six weeks
thereafter.
9. With the above observation, the writ application stands disposed
of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Jagabandhu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA
Designation: Secretary-in-Charge
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, CUTTACK
Date: 20-May-2023 11:24:56
