Orissa High Court
Subash Chandra Bisoyi vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 30 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.11399 of 2025
Subash Chandra Bisoyi ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Manoja Kumar Khuntia
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Smt. S. Nayak, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
30.04.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"It is therefore humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
admit the case, call for the records and after
hearing both the parties pass the following
reliefs;
i. To direct the Opposite Parties to enroll
the petitioner in the old pension scheme as
per OCS(Pension) Ruels, 1992 instead of
new pension scheme 2005 as has been
done in respect of similarly situated
persons taking into account the orders of
the learned Tribunal and also orders of
this Hon'ble Court.
ii. To declare the action of the Opposite
Parties in enrolling the petitioner under
new Pension scheme i.e.
OCS(Pension)Amendment Rule, 2005 as
illegal and arbitrary.
iii. To direct the Opposite Parties to grant all financial
and consequential service benefits."
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to
an advertisement dated 31.07.2002, the Petitioner applied for the post
of Sub-Inspector of Police. Accordingly, the Petitioner participated in
the written test which was held on 14.11.2002. The result of the
examination was published on 14.08.2004 in which the Petitioner
was found provisionally selected. Thereafter, the Petitioner was
finally appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 25.04.2005. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner further contended that by the time the
Petitioner was issued with the appointment letter to the post of Sub-
Inspector of Police, the OCS (Pension) Rule was although amended
after his appointment on 17.09.2005, however, such amended rule
was to take effect w.e.f. 01.01.2005. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has
been illegally deprived of the opportunity to be covered under the
amended OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of his argument,
contended that similarly situated persons who had earlier approached
the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2173 of 2015,
have been extended with such benefits pursuant to the order passed
by the learned Tribunal on 12.07.2016. He further contended that 116
numbers of Sub-Inspector of Police who were appointed along with
the Petitioner have been enrolled under the old Pension Scheme
w.e.f. 09.03.2021.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that earlier
the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25061 of
2022. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench
on 18.10.2022 by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh
representation before the competent authority with a corresponding
direction to the competent authority to consider the same in
accordance with law. He further contended that pursuant to order
dated 18.10.2022 although the Petitioner approached the authority by
filing a representation on 26.09.2023, however, the same is still
pending.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
although the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court, however,
while disposing of the previous writ petition this Court had directed
the Petitioner to approach the Director, Vigilance, Odisha, Cuttack by
filing a representation on 01.07.2024. He further contended that the
Director of Vigilance is not the competent authorities to take a
decision on the issue involved in the present writ petition. He further
contended that the Petitioner should have approached the State
Government by filing a representation for redressal of his grievance
with regard to the pensionary benefits. In the aforesaid context,
learned counsel for the State further contended that in the event the
Petitioner approaches the State Government for redressal of his
grievance by filing a representation, she will have no objection in the
event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the same
in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their
submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the
writ petition, this Court observes that the only issue involved in the
present writ petition is with regard to the applicability of the OCS
Pension Rules, 1992 to the case of the present Petitioner. On a careful
analysis of the issue involved in the present writ petition, this Court
is of the view that the same is no more res-integra. The very same
question, which was the subject matter of the dispute in the case of
Anand Dash v. State of Odisha & Ors. reported in 2014 (Supp-I)
OLR 754, has already been adjudicated by this Court and the
principle has been laid down and eventually such decision of this
Court has already been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view
of the aforesaid position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the
writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh
representation before the Opposite Party No.1 within two weeks from
today taking therein all the grounds along with judgments in support
of his contention, including the one delivered in Anand Dash's case
(supra). In the event such representation is filed, the Opposite Party
No.1 shall consider the case of the Petitioner by applying the law laid
down in Anand Dash's case (supra) as well as the order dated
09.03.2021 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition and dispose of the
representation by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a
period of four weeks. The final decision so taken be communicated to
the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 5 of 5.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 02-May-2025 18:54:31
