Orissa High Court
) Krushna Chandra Dash vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 2 April, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.6306 of 2024
1) Krushna Chandra Dash ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Engineer-in-cheif (civil) , Odisha Represented By Adv. -
3) Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circel Mr.D.Mohapatra, ASC
(r And B) , Odisha
Mr.S.K.Patra,Standing Counsel
4) Executive Engineer, General Electrical
Division No.i For A.G.Odisha
5) Accountant General
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 02.04.2024
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as
documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the
Petitioner with the following prayers:-
"It is therefore humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
i) Direct the Opp.Parties to grant pension
and pensionary benefits under the Orissa
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992
taking into account his initial date of
appointment 01.10.1984 under the Govt.
as DLR, Work Charge and regular service
as has been given to other similarly
situated persons in the light of the
decision in the case of State of Orissa
vrs.Radheshyam Mohanta, W.P.(C)
No.12377/21009, which has been affirmed
in SLP(C) No.36038/2010, State of Orissa
vrs. Pitambar Mohapatra, W.P.(C)
No.13483/2012, Narusu Pradhan vrs.
State in O.A.No.1189(C)2006, which has
been affirmed in W.P.(C) No.5377/2010
and SLP(C) CC No.22498/2012, State of
Odisha v.Sarbeswar Bhujabal, State of
Odisha vrs. Pitambar Sahoo, W.P.(C)
No.2404/2017 (decided on 20.12.2017),
which has been affirmed in SLP(C) Diary
No.30806/2018, Chandra Nandi v. State
of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.19550
of 2011 (decided on 03.02.2021) and
Premananda Tripathy v. State of Odisha,
W.P.(C) No.27950 of 2019 (decided on
03.02.2021) and thereby quashing the
order dated 01.10.2022 vide Annexure-5
as it is illegal and not in consonance with
the aforesaid principles;
ii) Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as
would be deem fit and proper in the bona
fide interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
present Petitioner was initially engaged as DLR on
01.10.1984. While working as such, the present
Petitioner was brought over to the work charged
establishment to the post of Helper vide Office Order
No.180 dated 12.01.2011 of the Superintending Engineer,
Electrical Circle(R&B), Odisha, Bhubaneswar. Then he
was brought over to regular establishment vide order
dated 07.09.2018. Thereafter, the Petitioner has retired
from service w.e.f. 31.03.2020 on attaining the age of
superannuation. Now the Petitioner has approached this
Court challenging the order dated 01.10.2022 under
Annexure-5 whereby his claim for grant of pension has
been rejected by the Opposite Parties.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended
that earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court by
filing W.P.(C) No.39525 of 2021. This Court disposed of
the said writ petition vide order dated 20.12.2021 by
directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the
Petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal in Sarbeswar Bhujabal vs. State
of Odisha & Ors. (O.A. No.606 of 2015 decided on
05.07.2018). He further contended that in the case of
Sarbeswar Bhujabal, who stands in a similar footing with
the Petitioner, after passing of the order by the Tribunal,
he has been extended the pensionary benefits under
Annexure-7 series of the writ petition. So far the present
Petitioner is concerned, his representation was considered
pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by this
Court in W.P.(C) No.39525 of 2021, however the same
has been rejected vide order dated 01.10.2022 under
Annexure-5 to the writ petition by the Opposite Party No.1
holding that the Petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary
benefits.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other
hand, supported the impugned rejection order dated
01.10.2022 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He
further contended that the authorities have not committed
any illegality in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. Further
it was submitted that pursuant to the order dated
20.12.2021 in the earlier writ petition, the case of the
Petitioner was considered by the Opposite Parties and by
a detailed and speaking order, the claim of the Petitioner
has been rejected by the authorities by holding that the
Petitioner is not entitled to get similar benefits as has been
granted to Sarbeswar Bhujabal and Chandra Nandi. The
impugned rejection order further reveals that since the
Petitioner was a regular Helper since 2018, his service
was governed under the Pension (Amended) Rule, 2005
and not as per OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992. In such view
of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel
submitted that the Petitioner is covered by the aforesaid
new Pension Rules. Therefore, his case cannot be
considered under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.
Accordingly, it was prayed that the writ petition be
dismissed as the same is devoid of merit.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the
background facts of the present case, as well as the
materials on record, this Court observes that the only
question that is required to be adjudicated in the present
writ petition is with regard to entitlement of the Petitioner to
get pensionary benefits after retirement from service. In
the event this Court comes to a conclusion that the
Petitioner is entitled to the pensionary benefit, the
Petitioner will be eligible to get the pension. The aforesaid
issue, as it appears, is no more res integra. The same has
been adjudicated by this Court repeatedly on a number of
occasions. Apart from the judgment in Sarbeswar
Bhujabal's case (supra), similar issue was decided in
Khageswar Jena v. State of Odisha and Ors. (W.P.(C)
No.29993 of 2022 disposed of on 18.11.2022) and such
order passed by this Court has already been confirmed by
the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal bearing
W.A. No.301 of 2023 vide order dated 06.11.2023. Similar
view has also been taken in many similar matters like in
Sri Narsingh Choudhury v. State of Odisha and others
(W.P.(C) No.31366 of 2023, in Pradip Kumar Sahu v.
State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.28909 of 2023).
All the aforesaid employees retired from service after
01.01.2005 and they have been granted pension under
Old Rules. The Petitioner is squarely covered in Finance
Department Resolution No.17114 (255) F dated
04.04.2007. Therefore, the remedy of the Petitioner is to
work out in the light of the said circular.
8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court has
no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order vide
No.13939 dated 01.10.2022 under Annexure-5 to the writ
petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further
the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to
consider the case in terms of the Finance Department
Resolution No.17114 (255) F dated 04.04.2007 as well as
Pitambar Mohapatra, W.P.(C) No.13483/2012 and
Sarbeswar Bhujabal, O.A.No.606/2015 and grant of
pensionary benefits by taking into consideration so much
of the service period of the Petitioner so as to calculate the
minimum qualifying service period for grant of pensionary
benefits from NMR and work charged NMR period of the
Petitioner. Accordingly, minimum pensionary benefits be
calculated as is due and admissible to the present
Petitioner on the basis of the last pay drawn by him.
Further, it is directed that in the event similarly situated
employees, one of whom being Sarbeswar Bhujabal has
been given such pensionary benefits, then the case of the
Petitioner also be considered and the Petitioner shall be
paid the minimum pension as is due and admissible to him
within a period of two months from the date of
communication of a certified copy of this order by the
Petitioner.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
RKS
Location: High Court of Orissa
