Orissa High Court
Smt. Monalisa Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 8 January, 2024
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEBASIS AECH
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Location: OHC, CUTTACK.
Date: 11-Jan-2024 15:18:30
W.P.(C) No.43160 of 2023
Smt. Monalisa Behera .... Petitioners
Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. N.K. Praharaj, A.G.A.
Mr. S.K. Patra,
Standing Counsel for O.P. No.5
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 08.01.2024
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties
and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party
No.5-Principal Accountant General (A&E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar.
Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court
be pleased to allow the writ petition by directing the
Opp. Parties for continuance of the petitioner in the
GPF subscription deduction in her existing GPF
account no.MJO-54968 by making subscription
regularly with all consequential service benefits so
// 2 //
also treating her service under the old O.C.S.
Reason: Authentication (Pension) Rules 1992 keeping in view of the order(s)
Location: OHC, CUTTACK.
Date: 11-Jan-2024 15:18:30 under Annexure-9, 10 & 11 so also the previous order
of this Hon'ble Court as per Annexure-8 in view of
continuance of GPF subscription of similar situated
Staff Nurses within a time bound period for the
interest of justice.
And may pass any other Writ(s), Direction(s),
Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and
proper."
4. Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
at the outset, submitted that the present Petitioner was initially
appointed on 19.11.2004, on being duly selected by the District
Selection Committee, as a Staff Nurse, which has been
subsequently re-designated as Nursing Officer. While working as
such, the service of the Petitioner was regularized vide order dated
01.12.2010 of the Opposite Party No.4 and the Petitioner was
absorbed as regular Staff Nurse w.e.f. the said date. While the
Petitioner was continuing in service, the O.C.S. (Pension) Rules,
1992 was amended in the year 2005 and the amended provision
came into effect from the date 17.09.2005. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further contended that initially the Opposite Parties were
deducting her contribution to the G.P.F. Account No.MJO-54968
and the Petitioner was being issued with account slips of such
G.P.F. Account. The said GPF Account which was opened in the
2012 and contribution was deducted from the salary of the
Petitioner, however, the Opposite Parties stopped deducting the
contribution from the year 2015. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
also contended that earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court
by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.37895 of 2020, which
was disposed of on 13.01.2021 with a direction to the Opposite
// 3 //
Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner. However, he further
Location: OHC, CUTTACK. contended that till date the case of the Petitioner has not been
Date: 11-Jan-2024 15:18:30
considered despite the order dated 13.1.2021 passed by this Court.
5. In course of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
contended that in a case of the similarly situated employee, who
was working as a Pharmacist and had joined in the year 2004 and
whose service was regularized in the year 2008, approached the
Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar by filing O.A.
No.805 of 2015. The Tribunal vide order dated 15.7.2019 allowed
the O.A. and the impugned order dated 6.1.2015 was quashed. It is
further held that the applicant, namely, Aswini Kumar Panda is
governed by the O.C.S.(Pension) Rules 1992 and GPF(O) Rules,
1938 and, accordingly, a further direction was given to the
Opposite Parties to grant all such benefits at par with other regular
employees. The order passed by the Tribunal was assailed before
this Court by the State-Opposite Parties by filing a writ petition
bearing W.P.(C) No.38625 of 2020. A Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 19.04.2022 has affirmed the order passed
by the Tribunal. The State-Opposite Parties further assailed the
order passed by the Tribunal as well as this Court before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Diary No(s).14632 of 2023. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 03.07.2023 was pleased to dismiss the SLP preferred
by the State-Opposite Parties thereby affirming the order passed by
the Tribunal as well as this Court. In the aforesaid background,
learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the principle laid
down by this Court in Aswini Kumar Panda's case by referring to
the judgment of this Court in State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sanjulata
// 4 //
Sethy & others has attained finality. He further contended that by
Location: OHC, CUTTACK. applying such principle, the Petitioner is also entitled to the benefit
Date: 11-Jan-2024 15:18:30
as has been granted in the case of Aswini Kumar Panda's case
(supra).
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture further
contended that similar situated Staff Nurses, who are appointed
along with the Petitioner, are continuing in service and their
contribution towards G.P.F. is being regularly deducted from their
salary and they are covered under the O.C.S. (Pension) Rules,
1992. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that the conduct of the Opposite Parties, so far the
present Petitioner is concerned, is grossly arbitrary and
discriminatory and, accordingly, the same is unsustainable in the
eye of law.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
the Sate-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that the
Petitioner, as it appears, has already approached the Opposite
Parties after disposal of the earlier writ petition. He further
contended that no final decision has been taken in the matter of the
present Petitioner. It was also contended by the learned Additional
Government Advocate that the order in the case of Aswini Kumar
Panda, which is being relied upon by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner, was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court only on
the ground of delay and laches on the part of the State-Opposite
Parties. He further contended that the order having not been passed
on merits in the matter, it is open to the Opposite Parties to raise
the question in this writ application. On the aforesaid ground,
// 5 //
learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that he will
Location: OHC, CUTTACK. have no objection if the Petitioner be directed to approach the
Date: 11-Jan-2024 15:18:30
competent authority for redressal of her grievance in accordance
with law within a stipulated period of time.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the
background facts of the present case and further taking into
consideration the law laid down by this Court as well as the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it proper to dispose of
the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the
Petitioner to approach the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 along with
a certified copy of this order. In the event the Petitioner approaches
the Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 within three weeks from today,
such Opposite Parties shall do well to consider the case of the
Petitioner in the light of the discussion made hereinabove and
dispose of the grievance of the Petitioner by passing a speaking
and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of
communication of a certified copy of this order. The final decision
so taken thereon be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days
from the date of taking such decision.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
