Orissa High Court
Rajat Kumar Dutta vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 17 April, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RANJEETA SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 17-Apr-2025 16:35:42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.9760 of 2025
Rajat Kumar Dutta .... Petitioner
Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
17.04.2025
Order No.
1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with
the following prayer:
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:
i) direct the Opp. Parties to include the
Petitioners under GPF(O) Rules, 1938 and OCS
(Pension) Rules, 1992 by counting the past period of
services, rendered as Resource Person on contractual
basis since 23.12.1998 along with regular services as
qualifying services for computing the pension &
pensionary benefits in view of the settled principles of
law, decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court
in case of Harbans Lal Vs. The State of Punjab and
others (CWP No.2371 of 2010, decided on
31.08.2010), which has been upheld by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in SLP© No.23578 of 212 [SLP(C) C.C.
No.17901 of 2011], disposed of on 30.07.2012 (State
of Punjab and others Vrs. Harbans Lal) and also in the
case of Jeewan Lata Vs. State of Punjab and Others,
CWP No. 10238 of 2017 (O&M), decided on
10.05.2019 and Judgment, dated 26.08.2020 of the
// 2 //
Location: High Court of Orissa
Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3984 of 2010;
V. Sukumaran Vrs. State of Kerala and others and
Amarkant Rai Vrs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in
(2015) 5 SC 265 and grant pension and all
consequential benefits;
ii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s)
as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide
interest of justice.
And for this act of your kindness the petitioners
as duty bound, shall ever pray."
4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the
Petitioner states that highlighting his grievances, Petitioner
has made a representation before Opposite Party No.1 vide
Annexure-7 and the same may be directed to be considered
within a stipulated time, to which learned Counsel for the
State has no objection.
5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the records, this Court, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ
Petition directing Opposite Party No.1 to consider and
dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner vide
Annexure-7 taking into account Annexures- 8 & 10 to the
Writ Petition in accordance with law within a period of
three (3) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order with due communication to the Petitioner.
6. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Ranjeeta
