Orissa High Court
Jinita Rout vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 8 May, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.10224 of 2024
Jinita Rout ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prafulla Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
State Of Odisha & ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr.D.Mohapatra, ASC
Mr.S.K.Patra, Standing
Counsel for A.G., Odisha
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 08.05.2024
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 and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the A.G. (A&E), Odisha. 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) Admit and allow this writ petition and:
ii) Quash the impugned order No. 16866, dated
07.07.2022 passed by the opp. Party No.2 under
Annexure-4;
iii) Direct the opp. parties to regularize the service of
petitioner's father under regular establishment
retrospectively prior to his retirement notionally and
grant pension and family pension under Old
OCS(Pension Rules) 1992 by counting so much of past
service rendered in work charged period as has been
granted to other similarly situated persons within a
stipulated period of time and;
iv) Further direct to disburse the arrears of pension
within a stipulated period of time.
v) Pass such other order (s)/direction(s) as would be
deem fit & proper in the bonafide interest of justice;"
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the father
of the Petitioner was initially engaged as Work Charged Khalasi
on 02.01.1975. After rendering long period of service under
Work Charged establishment, he retired from service on
30.06.2000 and then died on 27.12.2013. Now the Petitioner has
approached this Court challenging the order dated 07.07.2022
under Annexure-4 whereby the claim for grant of pension has
been rejected by the Opposite Parties.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
earlier the father of the Petitioner had approached this Court by
filing WPC(OAC) No.2646 of 2008. This Court disposed of the
said writ petition vide order dated 01.02.2022 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-6
series of the writ petition. So far the present Petitioner is
concerned, her representation was considered pursuant to the
order dated 01.02.2022 passed by this Court in WPC(OAC)
No.2646 of 2008, however the same has been rejected vide order
dated 07.07.2022 under Annexure-4 to the writ petition by the
Opposite Party No.2 holding that the husband of 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 07.07.2022 under
Annexure-4 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 01.02.2022 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
since the Petitioner was a Work Charged Amin, his service was
governed under the Orissa Work 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. 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 belong to the very same department except
Narsingh Choudhury.
8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court has no
hesitation in setting aside the impugned order vide No.16866
dated 07.07.2022 under Annexure-4 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
of regularisation of service of the Petitioner's father in regular
establishment for grant of pensionary benefits by taking into
consideration so much of his service period so as to calculate the
minimum qualifying service period for grant of pensionary
benefits from work charged period of the Petitioner's father.
Accordingly, minimum pensionary benefits be calculated as is
due and admissible and grant family pension to the present
Petitioner on the basis of the last pay drawn by her father.
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
arrear pension as is due and admissible to her 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.
10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Location: High Court of Orissa
