Orissa High Court
Sri Duryodhan Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others on 5 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.30915 2023
Sri Duryodhan Sahoo .... 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. 05.10.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-
Opposite Parties and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the Accountant General (A&E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar.
Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. 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 minimum pension
and other retirement dues in favour of the petitioner under
old OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 by counting so much period
of past service rendered in N.M.R. as well as Work charged
establishment forthwith as has been granted to other similar
footing employees within a stipulated period of time and;
iii) And pass such other orders/directions as this Hon'ble
// 2 //
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and bona-fide interest of Justice."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner was initially appointed on 01.04.1989 in the post of Helper by
the Superintending Engineer, Northern Minor Irrigation Circle,
Sambalpur on NMR 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
05.01.2010, the Petitioner was brought over to the Work Charged
establishment. Finally on 19.08.2022 the service of the Petitioner was
regularized as per the decision of the Government in the post of Khalasi
(Group-D). Finally, the Petitioner was retired from service on
31.12.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of
Khalasi. 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 NMR 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.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand
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
// 3 //
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.
6. 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 MMR, 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 NMR 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/NMR 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
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.
// 4 //
7. 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: 10-Oct-2023 19:41:05
