Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs J. Rama Murty And Another on 4 January, 2024
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 601 of 2023
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr. Biplab Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate
-versus-
J. Rama Murty and another .... Respondents
Mr. S. Roy, Advocate for Respondent No.1
CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 04.01.2024
I.A. No.1530 of 2023
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. Biplab Mohanty, learned Additional Government
Advocate (AGA) for the Applicants/Appellants and Mr. S. Roy,
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1.
3. For the reasons stated therein, the delay of 144 days in filing the
present writ appeal is hereby condoned.
4. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
1. Heard Mr. Biplab Mohanty, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.1.
2. The Appellants, being the State functionaries, has filed this writ
appeal challenging the order dated 29th September, 2022 passed in
W.P.(C) No.21450 of 2022, by which the learned Single Judge has
directed the present Appellants to extend the similar benefit to the
Respondent No.1, as has been done in the case of Narusu Pradhan
v. State of Odisha (O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006 disposed of on 11th
June, 2009) and also directed the Respondent No.1 to appear before
the Appellants by producing the certified copy of the impugned
order to proceed with his claim.
3. Mr. Biplab Mohanty, learned AGA has contended that the
Respondent No.1 is not entitled to the benefit in terms of Narusu
Pradhan (supra) and also contended that the learned Single Judge
has committed an error by granting the claim of regularization and
pensionary benefit of the Respondent No.1, who retired from the
service under work charged establishment justifying the same in
light of the order passed in Narusu Pradhan (supra), where the
principle decided by the Tribunal has not only been confirmed by a
Division Bench of this Court (in State of Odisha v. Narusu
Pradhan (W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010, dismissed on 19th December,
2011) but also the SLP, preferred by the State, has been dismissed
(vide order passed by the apex Court on 7th January, 2013 in Civil
Appeal No.22498 of 2012). It has been contended that with the
disposal of such writ petition by the learned Single Judge, direction
was issued to consider the case of the Respondent No.1 in light of
the principles decided in other case, whereas no discussion was
made as to whether both the cases are factually similar or not in
order to invoke the principles decided in other case. Therefore, the
State has filed this writ appeal before this Court.
4. Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1
has vehemently contended that the Respondent No.1 stands on the
similar footing with that of the Appellant in Narusu Pradhan
(supra) and considering the factual background of the case of
Narusu Pradhan (supra) and applying the same to the case of the
Respondent No.1, the learned Single Judge directed to extend the
benefit to the Respondent No.1, as has been done in Narusu
Pradhan (supra). In view of such position, the learned Single Judge
has not committed any error apparent on face of the record so as to
cause any interference of this Court at this stage and, accordingly,
the writ appeal filed by the State may be dismissed.
5. The Respondent No.1 has relied upon the judgment of this Court
in case of Abhaya Charan Mohanty v. State of Odisha passed in
WPC(OAC) No.3494 of 2013 disposed of on 14.07.2021 and has
stated that in the said case, the Petitioner who was a work charged
employee, had claimed the pensionary benefits after his retirement
with retrospective effect. This Court, relying upon the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.21498 of 2012,
thereby dismissed the State Government's appeal and confirmed the
order dated 19.12.2011 of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.5377 of
2010 in the case of pensionary benefits as prayed for in that case.
Further reliance has also been placed on the order of a Division
Bench of this Court in Chandra Nandi v. State of Odisha and
others; 2014(I) OLR 734, where this Court had given a direction to
notionally regularize the service of the Petitioner prior to his
superannuation from the service and, accordingly, calculated the
Petitioner's entitlement including the pensionary benefits.
6. On the basis of the factual matrix available on record, it appears
that the Respondent No.1 had initially joined as NMR,
subsequently, was brought over to work charged establishment.
Thereafter, he retired from service. The continuance of the
Respondent No.1 in work charged establishment was considered for
all purposes including the gratuity. The Tribunal, vide order dated
03.05.1999 passed in O.A. No.70(B) of 1997, analyzing various
points of law, directed the State Government to regularize in an
establishment post from the time he completed five years of
continuous service in work charged establishment and the period
from that time till the date of retirement be counted towards the
pension and direction was issued to grant pensionary benefit to the
employees. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, the State filed the
writ application being O.J.C. No.13552 of 1999 and this Court, vide
order dated 01.05.2001, referring to the judgments rendered in
O.J.C. No.1162 of 1999 (State of Orissa v. Jhuma Parida and
others) and O.J.C. No.11028 of 1999 (State of Orissa v. Sudarsan
Sahoo and others), confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal and
dismissed the writ application. After dismissal of such writ
application, the Government brought the employee into regular
establishment for the purpose of granting pensionary benefit. But
the Government has not extended the benefits as has been extended
to the similarly situated persons. Hence, relying upon the judgment
of this Court in Narusu Pradhan (supra), which had been
confirmed by the apex Court, the benefit should be extended to the
Respondent No.1.
7. In view of such position, if the similarly situated persons have
already received the benefits, then the present Respondent No.1
cannot be deprived of the same, more particularly, when the
decision in Narusu Pradhan (supra) has been confirmed by the
apex Court.
8. Consequentially, the learned Single Judge has not committed any
error apparent on the face of record, so as to interfere with the same
and deny the benefits to the Respondent No.1.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal filed by the State merits no
consideration and the same is hereby dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
S. Behera/
M. Panda
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 05-Jan-2024 11:37:02
