Orissa High Court
Umakanta Behera vs 2. Heard Learned Counsel For The ... on 11 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 26648 of 2023
Umakanta Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Adv.
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp.Parties
Mr.S. Das, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
11.09.2023
Order No. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
1.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following relief:
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:-
i). direct the opp.parties to regularize him in
service for a day prior to his superannuation notionally
and grant pension and pensionary benefits under the
old rule in the light of the decision in the case of Narusu
Pradhan O.A. No. 1189(c)/2006, which has been
confirmed in W.P.(C) No. 5377 of 2010, vide order
dt.19.12.2011 and SLP in Civil Appeal No. 22498 of
2012, vide order dt.07.01.2013 and State of Odisha
vrs. Sarbeswar Bhujabal W.P.(C) No. 7680/2019, vide
order dt. 15.11.2019, which has been confirmed in
SLP(C) No. 7541/2020, order dt.31.10.2022 and State
of Odisha vrs. Pitambar Sahoo, W.P.(C) No.
24041/2017 (decided on 20.12.2017), which has been
affirmed in SLP(C) Diary No. 30806/2018 and Chandra
Nandi vs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.
19550 of 2011 (decided on 03.02.2021) which has
been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order
dt.06.05.2022 in SLP(C) No. 21180/2021, State of
Orissa and Others vrs. Jyostna Rani Patnaik and
others, W.P.(C) No. 1534/2008 as well as the benefits
given to similarly situated persons vide Annexure-7"
4. It is his case that he was engaged in the work charged
establishment under the administrative control of the
Superintending Engineer, Upper Kolab Circle way back in the
year 1977. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired
from service on 30.06.2009. He claims pensionary benefits
taking into account his entire length of service.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that he was never
absorbed in the regular cadre and retired as a work charged
employee and has been paid all admissible benefits relating to
EPF pension as per the Rules.
6. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner has
referred to the judgments of the apex Court in the case of
State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Narsu Pradhan (S.L.P.(C) No.
22498/2012) and State of Odisha & Ors. Vs. Sarbeswar
Bhujabal( SLP(C) Nos. 7541/2020) and contends that the case
of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio decided in the
said cases, inasmuch as the petitioners therein were granted
similar relief as has been claimed by the petitioner in the
present case. Learned State Counsel however, has a different
view. Nevertheless, it is for the concerned authority to take a
decision in the matter having regard to the relevant rules and
the ratio of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the
above mentioned cases.
7. The writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the
petitioner to submit a representation before the Secretary to
Government in Water Resources Department (opposite party
No.1) highlighting his grievance. If such representation is
submitted within three weeks from today, the opposite party
No.1 shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance
with law within a further period of three weeks under
intimation to the petitioner.
8. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
A.K. Rana Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
