Orissa High Court
Smt. Pranati Sahoo vs State Of Orissa And on 8 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 29355 of 2023
Smt. Pranati Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. K.C. Sahu,
Advocate
-Versus -
State of Orissa and .... Opposite Parties
another
Mr. S. Dash,
Additional Government
Advocate
Mr. S.K. Patra, Advocate
(For O.P. 5)
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER_
08.09.2023
Order No.
1.
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to
correct the typographical error in the cause title of the
writ petition in Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
4. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking
the following relief:-
"It, is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court
be pleased to allow this writ petition by
directing the Opp. Parties to continue in the
existing GPF account No.PHD-36731 by
making subscription in her account regularly
with all consequential service & governing
under the old OCS (Pension) Rules 1992 & GPF
(O) Rules with all consequential service
benefits for the interest of justice.
Any may pass any other Writ(s),
Direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may be
deemed fit and proper;
And for this act of kindness, the
petitioner shall as in duty bound every pray."
5. The sum and substance of the petitioner's case
is that she was engaged as an ANM and subsequently,
re-designated as MPHW (Female) on 01.01.2002 under
the administrative control of CDMO, Subarnapur. By
order dated 25.08.2006, the petitioner along with
similarly placed MPHW(F) were regularized with effect
from 01.09.2006. According to the petitioner, her GPF
account was opened and necessary deductions from
her salary were also made. Subsequently, however as
per order dated 17.03.2015 of the Principal Accountant
General (A & E), the GPF accounts in respect of such
employees including the petitioner were cancelled. It is
submitted that as per clarification issued by the
Finance Department on 04.04.2007, the OCS (Pension)
Amendment Rules 2005, the old pension scheme has
been done away with being replaced by the NPS but the
same shall not apply to persons like the petitioner who
were engaged on contractual basis prior to 01.01.2005
and were regularized thereafter.
6. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Narasingha Soren v. State
of Odisha and others [W.P.C (OA) No. 1999 of 2015]
7. Mr. S. Dash, learned Additional Government
Advocate submits that it is for the concerned authority
to consider whether the petitioner's case is covered by
the judgment as also the clarification issued by the
Finance Department.
8. This Court finds that the cancellation of GPF
account was done way back in the year, 2015. The
petitioner had remained silent for all these years.
Nevertheless, if the law has been interpreted to include
similarly situated employees as the petitioner to grant
the benefit of GPF, there is no reason why the
petitioner should be deprived of the same. However, it
is for the concerned authority to take a decision in the
matter after considering all relevant facts including the
eligibility of the petitioner.
9. The writ petition is therefore disposed of
granting liberty to the petitioner to move the concerned
authority, i.e. through the opposite party No.4 by
submitting a representation within a week from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order or on
production of certified copy thereof by the petitioner. If
such representation is submitted, the same shall be
considered in accordance with law within a period of
two weeks thereafter.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU (Sashikanta Mishra)
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication Judge
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 12-Sep-2023 12:34:15
B.C.Tudu
