Orissa High Court
Sri Narasingha Choudhury vs State Of Odisha & Others on 4 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31366 of 2023
Sri Narasingha Choudhury .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Tarun Patnaik, A.S.C.
Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing Counsel
for Accountant General (A&E), Odisha,
Bhubaneswar
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 04.10.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. On oral prayer of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, he is
permitted to make necessary correction in the body of the writ petition.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, learned
Additional Standing Counsel appearing the State-Opposite Parties and
Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Accountant
General (A&E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Perused the Writ Petition as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
4. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
" It is prayed, therefore that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to;
i) Admit and allow the writ petition and;
ii) Direct the Opposite Parties to grant and disburse
minimum pension and other retirement dues to the
petitioner under old OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 by
// 2 //
calculating the regular period, work charged period and so
much period of service rendered on D.L.R. basis within a
stipulated period of time and;
iii) And pass such other orders/directions as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and bona-fide interest of Justice."
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner was initially appointed on 18.07.1983 in the post of Jr. Typist
(Group-C) Erstwhile Executive Engineer (R&B), Division, Puri on
D.L.R. basis. Thereafter, the Petitioner continued to service
uninterruptedly. When the Petitioner was continuing, the Notification of
the Finance Department dated 15.05.1997 had come into force.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view
of such Notification, the Petitioner should have been brought over to the
Regular establishment. However, the same was not done by the
authority by deviating the Notification dated 15.05.1997. On
14.01.2011, the Petitioner was brought over to the Work Charged
establishment as Jr. Clerk-cum-Typist (Group-C). Finally on
30.10.2018 the service of the Petitioner was regularized as per the
decision of the Government in the post of Jr. Clerk (Group-C). Finally,
the Petitioner was retired from service on 30.06.2023 on attaining the
age of superannuation from the post of Jr. Clerk. In view of the
aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the Opposite Party No.1 be directed to pay the pensionary benefit to
the Petitioner taking into consideration the past service rendered by the
Petitioner both as DLR as well as his service rendered in the Work
Charged establishment. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this
Court for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the retirement
benefit as well as the pensionary benefit as is due and admissible to the
Petitioner.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand,
// 3 //
contended that since the Petitioner does not have the qualifying service
period, he is not entitled to pensionary benefit. Accordingly, the
authorities have not considered the case of the Petitioner for grant of
pensionary benefit. However, with regard to payment of retiral dues,
learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the amount as
is due ad admissible to the Petitioner has already been paid to the
Petitioner on his superannuation from service. Accordingly it was
submitted that the Writ Petition was devoid of merit and the same be
dismissed.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful
examination of the background facts of the present case and keeping in
view the well settled position of law that once an employee who was
working initially as DLR, thereafter brought over to Work Charged
establishment and finally, his service was regularized shall be
considered for payment of pensionary benefit by taking into
consideration as how much period of service rendered in Work charged
and DLR establishment, calculate the minimum qualifying period of
service for grant of pensionary benefit. Such a proposition of law as has
been propounded by this Court has already been accepted by many
judgments of this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position,
this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing
the Opposite Parties to calculate the minimum qualifying service period
of the Petitioner taking the shortfall period from the service period of
the Petitioner as work Charged employee/DLR to calculate the
minimum qualifying service period, the benefit which is due and
admissible to the Petitioner on the basis of his last pay drawn
accordingly, the same be sanctioned and disbursed to the Petitioner
within a period of two months from the date of communication of the
certified copy of this order. In the event, the Petitioner though is getting
// 4 //
any other pensionary benefit, the same shall be surrendered before the
Government. Any decision taken be communicated to the Petitioner
within 10 days of taking such decision.
8. 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
Debasis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEBASIS AECH
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC CUTTACK
Date: 09-Oct-2023 18:52:01
