Orissa High Court
Manamohan Bhuinbal vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 9 January, 2024
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.148 of 2024
Manamohan Bhuinbal .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. N.K.Praharaj, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 09.01.2024
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 Government Advocate 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 prayed, therefore that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to;
i) Admit and allow the writ petition and;
ii) Quash the impugned order vide No.30620/WR
dated 02.11.2024 under Annexure-6 and;
iii) Direct the Opposite Parties to regularize the
service of petitioner under regular
// 2 //
establishment retrospectively prior to his
retirement and to grant the petitioner pension
and other retirement dues under Old OCS
(Pension) Rules, 1992 by counting past service
rendered in N.M.R. as well as Work charged
establishment forthwith as has been granted to
other similar placed employees and to grant
family pension in her favour within a
stipulated period of time and;
iv) Further direct to disburse the arrears of
pension within a stipulated period of time.
v) And pass such other orders/directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case and bona-
fide interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
husband of the present Petitioner was initially engaged as NMR
on 01.04.1985. While working as such, the husband of the
present Petitioner was brought over to the work charged
establishment to the post of Watchman vide Office Order
No.1481 dated 23.04.2010 of the Superintending Engineer,
Central M.I. Circle, Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, the Petitioner has
been retired from service w.e.f. 30.04.2019 on attaining the age
of superannuation. The present Petitioner has approached this
Court challenging the order dated 02.11.2023 under Annexure-6
whereby his claim for grant of pension has been rejected by the
Opposite Parties No.1.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.18688 of 2023. This Court disposed of the said writ
petition vide order dated 13.06.2023 by directing the Opposite
// 3 //
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-10
series of the writ petition. So far the present Petitioner is
concerned, his representation was considered pursuant to the
order dated 13.6.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.18688
of 2023, however the same has been rejected vide order dated
02.11.2023 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition by the
Opposite Parties holding that the Petitioner was not a regular
employee. Therefore, he is not entitled to the pensionary
benefits.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand,
supported the impugned rejection order dated 02.11.2023 under
Annexure-6 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 13.6.2023 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. The impugned rejection order further reveals that the
service of the petitioner was governed under the Orissa Work
// 4 //
Charged Employees (Appointment and Conditions of Service)
Instruction, 1974. In such view of the matter, learned Additional
Standing Counsel submitted that the Petitioner is covered by the
aforesaid instruction of the year 1974. 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. 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 belongs to the very same
// 5 //
department except Narsingh Choudhury.
8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court has no
hesitation in setting aside the impugned order dated 02.11.2023
under Annexure-6 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 the regularization of
the service of the Petitioner in regular establishment for 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 of the petitioner 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 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)
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 16-Jan-2024 10:31:30
