Orissa High Court
Kuber Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others on 8 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.33247 of 2023
Kuber Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. Pramoda Ku. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.C.Das,A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 08.11.2023
02. I.A.NO.17094 OF 2023
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. This application has been filed seeking modification of order
dated 16.10.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.33247 of 2023.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
inadvertently the prayer of some other writ petition has been typed out
in the present Writ Petition.
4. Considering such submissions, prayer made in the Interlocutory
Application is allowed. Accordingly, the prayer of the present Writ
Petition be quoted in Paragraph-3 of the order dated 16.10.2023 by
removing the existing prayer in the order dated 16.10.2023.
5. Earlier order dated 16.10.2023 is recalled and the following order
is passed.
W.P.(C) No.33247 of 2023
6. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the Writ Petition as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
7. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following
// 2 //
prayer :
"It is therefore, prayed that your Lordships' be
graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue rule nisi in
the nature of appropriate writ or any other writ(s) as deem fit
and proper calling upon the Opp.Parties to show cause as to
why the prayer made hereunder shall not be allowed, and if
no/insufficient cause is shown, the said rule be made absolute
by issuing writ)s) in the nature of:
The Opp.Parties be directed to count the past services
of the Petitioner w.e.f 17.04.1985 to 31.10.1997 in Orissa
Consumers' Co-operative Federation Limited, Bhubaneswar
towards qualifying service for the purpose of enhancing his
pension and pensionary benefits and accordingly, grant draw
and disburse the pension and pensionary benefits to the
Petitioner in view of the settled principle of law as decided in
the case of Sarada Prasad Routray-versus-State of Odisha and
Others within a stipulated period in the interest of justice.
And further be pleased to pass such other
writ(s)/order(s) as may deem just and proper,"
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case
of the petitioner is covered by a judgment of the tribunal in O.A.
No.2045(C) of 2010 disposed of on 23.03.2018 in the case of Sarada
Prasad Routray Vs. State of Orissa. He further contended that the order
was tribunal was upheld by dismissing the writ petition bearing W.P.(C)
No.15923 of 2019. Further, the same was also confirmed by the
Supreme Court with the dismissal of State SLP bearing SLP No.11119
of 2023 on 17.05.2023. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner will be considered
in the light of the aforesaid judgment.
9. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that
while disposing of the O.A., the learned Tribunal has not considered
Rule 44 (3) of the OCS(pension) rules, 1992. He also contended that,
the decision in Sarada Prasad Routray's case (supra) is not binding
with this case. In such view of the matter, learned Addl. Standing
counsel submitted that the present writ application is devoid of merit
and accordingly the same should be dismissed.
// 3 //
10. This Court on a careful consideration of the submissions made by
learned Counsels appearing for the parties and on a careful examination
of the background facts as well as materials on record deems it proper
to dispose of writ application at the stage of admission by granting
liberty to the petitioner to approach the Opposite party No.1 by filing a
detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with a copy
of the order passed in Sarada Prasad Routray's Case (supra). In such
event, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the petitioner
keeping in view the judgment in Sarada Prasad Routray's case (supra)
as well as the contention of the State Counsel that in view of the
provision contained in Rule 44 (3) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992,
the petitioner is not entitled to get such pensionary benefits. The
Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the representation of the
petitioner strictly in accordance with law and dispose of the same within
a period of two months by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The
decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks
thereafter. It is further made clear that in the event the Opposite Party
No.1 comes to a conclusion that the case of the Petitioner is covered by
the above noted judgment, then similar benefits granted to the petitioner
in the above noted case be also extended in favour of the present
petitioner, if there is no other legal impediments, within a period of six
weeks from the date of taking such a decision.
11. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
RKS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Nov-2023 11:19:21
