Orissa High Court
Sapneswar Dehury vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 8 November, 2024
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C). No. 26455 of 2024
Sapneswar Dehury .... Petitioner
Mr. Indramani Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 08.11.2024
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and the State.
2. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking
direction to opposite parties to sanction pensionary and
other retrial benefits by treating the petitioner as a regular
employee with retrospective effect after completion of five
years of service under work charged establishment, i.e.,
from the year 1986 and further seeks direction to opposite
parties to pay the arrear dues with interest.
3. Mr. Indramani Sahoo, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that similar benefit has been extended
to one Narusu Pradhan as stated in paragraph-6.15 of O.A.
and there is no denial of the same. As such the Petitioner
having stood in similar footing, he is entitled to grant all
the benefits.
4. Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the
State contended that the Petitioner has already retired from
service and he was working as a Mate and he has been
paid the benefit in terms of the Appendix-III OPWD Code,
Vol-II, i.e., Odisha Workcharged employees (Appointment
and Condition of Service) Instruction, 1974, therefore, the
claim of the Petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, after
going through the records it appears that the Petitioner was
appointed as Watch man in the year 1981 under work
charged establishment vides order No.11026 dated
02.12.1981 of the Superintending Engineer Rengali Dam
Circle Rengali in the district of Dhenkanal and joined in
his service on 04.12.1981. Subsequently he was transferred
to Subarnarekha irrigation project in the district of
Mayurbhanj. He continued in his post uninterruptedly till
30.06.2012 i.e. on attaining the age of superannuation, the
Petitioner was continuing as watchman and was granted
annual increment from time to time and was also
transferred to different divisions in the interest of the
Government works during his service period like regular
employees. In obedience to the direction of the apex Court,
this Court and the Tribunal, the Government of Odisha in
Finance Department introduced a guideline bearing
Resolution No. 22764 dated 15.05.1997 to brought over
the work charged/NMR/DLR personnel to the regular
establishment, those who have appointed prior to
12.04.1993. Even though the petitioner fulfilled the
criteria, his case was not considered, but the other similar
employees have been considered. Apart from this, the
name of the Petitioner was also sponsored by the E.I.O.C.
Water Resources, Odisha in his letter dated 16.12.2008.
When the case of the Petitioner was not considered to
convert his service to regular establishment, he filed a
representation on 04.03.2024 before the opposite party
no.1, but no action has been taken. Finding no other
alternative, he approached the Tribunal. In the meantime
he retired from service on 30.06.2012. As it reveals from
the record that one Narusu Pradhan, a similar
circumstanced person like the petitioner had filed O.A. No.
1189 (C) of 2006 praying for retrial benefits. The Tribunal
allowed the retrial pensionary benefits in his favour vide
order dated 11.06.2009, which was challenged by the State
before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5377 of 2010. This Court
dismissed the writ petition on 19.12.2011 and confirmed
the order passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter against the
order passed by this Court, the State has preferred SLP in
Civil Appeal No. 22498 of 2012, the same was also
dismissed on 07.01.2013. The Petitioner has made a
specific pleading in paragraph-6.15, which reads as
follows:
"6.15. That one Narusu Pradhan, a similar
circumstanced person like the applicant had
filed O.A. No. 1189 (C)/ 2006, praying for
retrial benefits. This Hon'ble Tribunal has
allowed the retrial pensionary benefits in his
favour, which was challenged by the State
Government in the Hon'ble High Court of
Odisha in W.P.(C) No. 5377 of 2010. The
Hon'ble High Court of Odisha has dismissed
the writ petition confirming the order of this
Hon'ble Tribunal.
It is submitted that the State Government
also challenged the order passed in W.P.(C) No.
5377 of 2010, where the Hon'ble High Court of
Odisha has confirmed the order of the Hon'ble
Tribunal granting pensionary benefits before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also
dismissed the SLP on 07.01.2013. In view of the
dismissal of the writ petition and the SLP filed
by the State, it has become a Law of the land
that the Work Charged employees will get
pensionary benefits. In view of the above
position of Law, there is no reason in not
granting the pensionary benefits in favour of the
applicant.
The copy of the order dated 11.06.2009
passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No.
1189 (C)/2006, copy of the order dt.19.12.2011,
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Odisha in
W.P.(C) No. 5377 of 2010 and the copy of the
order dt.7.1.2013, passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 22498/2012
are annexed as Annexure-12, 13 and 14
respectively to this Original Application."
6. In the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties, no
reply has been given to paragraph-6.15. Thereby, there is
no denial of the contentions raised by the Petitioner in
paragraph-6.15. In that view of the matter, the relief
claimed by the Petitioner is fully covered by the judgment
of the Tribunal passed in the case of Narusu Pradhan,
which has been confirmed by this Court as well as the apex
Court. Thus the Petitioner, having stood in similar footing,
is entitled to get the benefits which have been extended to
Narusu Pradhan and all the differential benefits and
consequential benefits, as due and admissible to him, shall
be granted to him in accordance with law within a period
of four months from the date of communication of this
order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Bijay
Date: 11-Nov-2024 17:22:37
