Orissa High Court
Parsuram Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 8 January, 2024
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.42518 of 2023
Parsuram Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr.B.Barik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr.S.Das, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
08.01.2024
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
Additional Government Advocate for the State. Perused the Writ
Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:
I. Direct/ order that pension, gratuity and other post
retirement benefits shall be sanctioned and paid to the
petitioner counting his entire period of service for the
purpose of pension as per the settled position of law.
II. Direct/ order that the unutilized leave salary shall be
paid counting the entire period of service.
III. Direct/ order that the arrear differential pensionary dues
shall carry 12% interest from the date of entitlement.
And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as
this Hon'ble Court would be deem fit and proper as facts and
circumstances of the case;"
// 2 //
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner was initially appointed on 01.02.1982 in the post of Work
Sarkar by the Executive Engineer, Bolangir Irrigation Division,
Bolangir on NMR basis. Thereafter, the Petitioner continued to
service uninterruptedly. For regularization of service of the
Petitioner, the Petitioner had approached the authority by filing
representation. In the meantime, the Notification of the Finance
Department dated 15.05.1997 had come into force. Accordingly,
learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of such
Notification, the Petitioner should have been brought over to the
Work Charge establishment. Thereafter his services have been
regularized as has been provided in the Resolution dated 15.05.1997.
However, the same was not done by the authority by deviating the
Notification dated 15.05.1997. On 16.9.2009, the Petitioner was
brought over to the Work Charged establishment. However, despite
such Resolution the services of the Petitioner cannot be regularised.
Finally, on 15.04.2019 the Petitioner submitted a representation
before the Opposite parties for regularization of his service. Finally
on 01.03.2023 the services of the Petitioner were regularized as per
the decision of the Government in the post of Work Sarkar. Finally,
the Petitioner was retired from service on 30.04.2023 on attaining the
age of superannuation from the post of Work Sarkar in the office of
Opp. Party No.4. In view of the aforesaid factual background, learned
counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.1 be
directed to pay the pensionary benefit to the Petitioner taking into
consideration the past service rendered by the Petitioner both as
NMR as well as his service rendered in the Work Charged
establishment. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this Court
for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the retirement benefit as
// 3 //
well as the pensionary benefit as is due and admissible to the
Petitioner.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand
contended that since the Petitioner does not have the qualifying
service period, he is not entitled to pensionary benefit. Accordingly,
the authorities have not considered the case of the Petitioner for grant
of pensionary benefit. However, with regard to payment of retiral
dues, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the
amount as is due ad admissible to the Petitioner has already been paid
to the Petitioner on his superannuation from service. Accordingly it
was submitted that the Writ Petition was devoid of merit and the
same be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful
examination of the background facts of the present case and keeping
in view the well settled position of law that once an employee who
was working initially as MMR, thereafter brought over to Work
Charged establishment and finally, his service was regularized shall
be considered for payment of pensionary benefit by taking into
consideration as how much period of service rendered in Work
charged and NMR establishment, calculate the minimum qualifying
period of service for grant of pensionary benefit. Such a proposition
of law as has been propounded by this Court has already been
accepted by many judgments of this Court. Keeping in view the
aforesaid legal position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the
Writ Petition by directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of
the Petitioner and in the event the Opp. Parties are of the view that
the law enunciated by this Court is applicable to the Petitioner cause,
the Opposite Parties are directed to calculate the minimum qualifying
service period of the Petitioner taking the shortfall period from the
// 4 //
service period of the Petitioner as work Charged employee/NMR to
calculate the minimum qualifying service period, the benefit which is
due and admissible to the Petitioner on the basis of his last pay drawn
accordingly, the same be sanctioned and disbursed to the Petitioner
within a period of two months from the date of communication of the
certified copy of this order. In the event, the Petitioner though is
getting any other pensionary benefit, the same shall be surrendered
before the Government. Any decision taken be communicated to the
Petitioner within 10 days of taking such decision.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 11-Jan-2024 14:47:50
