Orissa High Court
Lingaraj Nag & Another vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 26 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.29788 of 2024
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India
Lingaraj Nag & another .... Petitioners
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioners : Mr.Sangram Jena,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty,
Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing & judgment : 26.08.2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J.
First Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Political
Science vide order dated 14.09.2001. The second Petitioner was
appointed as a Lecturer in History vide order dated 30.04.2003.
Both of them have presented this common petition to call in
question the order dated 16.09.2023 at Annexure-6 whereby the
Deputy Controller of Accounts, Odisha has sent an intimation to
the Accounts Officer of Department of Higher Education,
Bhubaneswar to the effect that the Petitioners are not eligible for
allotment of new GPF Account numbers in view of FD Letter
No.30447/F dated 18.07.2007.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argues that
his clients have eligibility to the allotment of new GPF Account
Numbers in view of Rule 4 read with its proviso of Odisha Aided
Educational Institutions Employees' General Provident Fund
Rules, 1983 (in short, '1983 Rules'); other similarly circumstanced
lecturers have already been accorded such Account Numbers and
therefore, his clients cannot be treated with step motherly attitude
at the hands of jurisdictional Opposite Parties. Lastly, he submits
that the context of the Rule, being as clear as Gangetic waters,
does not admit any interpretation.
3. After service of notice, official Opposite Parties, having
entered appearance through the learned Additional Government
Advocate, have filed their Counter resisting the petition. He
contends that it is the policy of the State that only a class of
employees are entitled to allotment of new GPF Account Numbers
and that the Petitioners do not fall within that category and
therefore, no fault can be laid at the threshold of the officials, who
have structured the impugned order rejecting the claim of the
Petitioners for such allotment.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to
grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:-
4.1. The Petitioners have been working as Lecturers prior to
01.01.2005, going by their dates of appointment cannot be
disputed. Under Rule 4 read with its proviso of the 1983 Rules, a
right is created in favour of lecturers of the kind for the grant of new
GPF Account Numbers. The context of Rule 4 is as under:
"4. All temporary employee including probationers after a
continuous service of one year, and all permanent employees
shall subscribe to the Fund and on joining the Fund shall cease
to contribute to Contributory Provident Fund or any other Fund.
NOTE 1-A temporary employee who completes one year of
continuous 'service during a month shall subscribe to the fund
from his emoluments for the subsequent month. For example a
temporary employee completing one year of continuous service
on any day in May will be required to subscribe from his
emoluments for June payable in July or at the end of June.
NOTE 2-Temporary employees who have been appointed
against regular vacancies and are likely to continue for more
than a year may subscribe to Fund any time before completion of
one year's service.
[Provided that these rules shall not apply to the employees
appointed on or after the 1st day of January, 2005 to services
and posts in Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions
either temporarily or permanently.]"
Learned counsel for the Petitioners is more than justified in telling
the Court that the Rule being as clear as crystal, it does not need
any interpretation. The benefit of Rule extends to all those, who
have been appointed prior to 01.01.2005. The proviso to said Rule
needs to be treated as an exception to the Rule. The proviso
excludes only employees, who have been appointed on or after
01.01.2005, i.e., the date on which this amendment to the Rule
came into effect. Denying relief to the Petitioners cannot be
sustained without manhandling to the Rules.
5. The contention of the learned AGA that in the FD Letter
No.30447/F dated 18.07.2007, certain parameters have been
prescribed and that Petitioners apparently do not fall into that and
therefore, no relief can be accorded to them, is very difficult to
agree with. The said letter (Annexure-7) is produced by the
Petitioners at Annexure-7 and unnumbered 4th paragraph of the
said letter is reproduced below:-
"Now the A.G.(A&E), Orissa has brought to the notice of the
Government that while sending the applications of the above
category of employees to the A.G.(A&E), Orissa or Controller of
Accounts, Orissa as the case may be, for allotment of G.PF.
account number in their favour, concerned DDO's are not in beating
the reason for applicability of GPF(O) Rules in respect of such
employees The AG (A&F), Orissa has further pointed out that some
of the DDO's are sendingapplications of the new entrants to State
Government Service for allotment of GP, account numbers in favour
of such employces even through the existing GPF(O) Rules are not
applicable in case of such employees joined in State Govcinment
service on or after 1.1.2005.
The above observation supports the case of the Petitioners as
against that of the Opposite Parties.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds. A
Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the inter-departmental
communication dated 16.09.2023 at Annexure-6; a Writ of
Mandamus issues to the Controller of Accounts, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.3 to allot new GPF Account
Number to the Petitioners within a period of six (6) weeks keeping
in view the observations hereinabove made.
Default or delay shall be viewed seriously, if petitioners are
driven to another legal battle.
Now, no costs.
Web copy of this judgment to be acted upon by all
concerned.
Dixit Krishna Shripad,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 26th day of August, 2025/Basu
Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
Date: 26-Aug-2025 17:22:11
