Orissa High Court
Purna Chandra Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 31116 of 2023
Purna Chandra Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. Sadasiva Patra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
09.10.2023
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking
direction to Opposite Parties to allow his pension after
regularizing his service after completion of 5 years of service in
work charged establishment or at least one day with all
consequential benefits along with 12% interest.
4. Mr. S. Patra, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that similarly situated persons had approached the
Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1513 (C) of 2009
and OA No. 2348 (C) of 2009, which was disposed of on
11.06.2009 and 18.06.2018 respectively. Challenging the said
// 2 //
orders, State has preferred W.P.(C) No. 27950 of 2019 and
W.P.(C) No. 19550 of 2011, which was disposed of on
03.02.2021 confirming the orders passed by the Tribunal.
Thereby, there is a direction from this Court that the Petitioner
therein should be treated to have been regularized in service at
least one day prior to his superannuation, by creating
supernumerary post, if necessary and accordingly, he shall be
extended with the pensionary benefits as would be admissible to
him. It is contended that in view of the orders passed by this
Court, the Petitioner being on the same footing, is entitled to get
the benefit of the said order. Accordingly, this writ petition may
be disposed of in the light of the order dated 03.02.2021 passed
by this Court as the said order has not been challenged before
the apex Court till date.
5. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the Petitioner further
contended that an identical matter, i.e., in State of Odisha v.
Kasidev Maharana (W.P.(C) No.7246 of 2016), similar view
had been taken by this Court. The judgment in said Kasidev
Maharana's case (supra) was also followed by the Division
Bench in Gobardhan Prusty and others (W.P.(C) No.21585 of
2014 disposed of on 28.06.2022). It is further contended that the
order passed in Gobardhan Prusty's case (supra) by a Division
Bench of this Court was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court at the behest of the State-Opposite Parties and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in Gobardhan Prusty's case
// 3 //
(supra). Similarly, the order passed by in Kasidev Maharana's
case (supra) was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S.L.P. No.23207 of 2018 vide order dated 30.7.2018.
6. Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing
attention of this Court to the order dated 05.07.2023 passed in
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).23819 of 2023 in the
matter of The State of Odisha & Ors. V. Hadibandhu Bhol,
submitted before this Court that in similar matter the State-
Opposite Parties again challenged identical order before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 05.07.2023 while affirming the order dated 03.01.2019
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7753 of 2016, has cautioned
the State Government not to approach the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter covered and decided against it. A copy of
order dated 05.07.2023 is filed in Court today and the same is
taken on record.
7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it is crystal clear
that the law laid down by a series of decisions of the Tribunal as
well as by this Court have been affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the same has attained finality. Therefore,
this Court once again reiterates that in identical matters, State-
Opposite Parties should make every endeavour so that benefits
arising out of an order in similar case be extended to similar
situated persons at the Government Level itself by following the
line of judgments which are already governing the field instead
of making unsuccessful attempts to unsettle the same.
// 4 //
8. In the light of the discussions made hereinabove and
considering the limited nature of grievance involved in the
present writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of
the writ petition by directing the Opposite Parties to consider
the grievance of the Petitioner in the light of the orders passed
in W.P.(C) No.27950 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No.19550 of 2011,
disposed of on 03.02.2021 and also in the light of orders dated
16.11.1999, 27.08.2021, which is annexed as
Annexures-6 Series to the writ petition and also order passed by
this Court in the case of Bandhua Gochhayat v. State of
Odisha & Others, reported in 2022 (I) OLR - 266, and pass
appropriate order in accordance with law and extend the
benefits to the Petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible pursuant to
said order as expeditiously as possible within a period of three
months from the date of communication of this order.
9. With the above observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
10. Issue urgent certified copy 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: 12-Oct-2023 19:52:47
