[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ajaya Kumar Sarangi vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 11 December, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.29959 of 2025
Ajaya Kumar Sarangi ..... Petitioner
Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
11.12.2025
Order No.04
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the
following prayer:-
"The petitioner, therefore, most respectfully prays that
your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this
writ application and issue Rule NISI to the OPs to show
cause as to why the impugned order dtd.09.09.25 under
annexure-8 shall not be quashed and further why a
direction shall not be issued to the OPs to grant
pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner under
OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 taking into account this
service rendered by him on NMR basis, work charged
establishment and regular establishment within a
stipulated period;
And on their failing to show cause or showing
insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute by
issuing appropriate writ(s);
And pass such further order/ orders as may be
deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case;
And allow this writ petition with cost;
And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall, as in
duty bound, ever pray."
4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as a NMR, he was
brought over to the work-charged establishment vide office order
dtd.03.12.2009 under Annexure-2. Not only that while continuing
in the work-charged establishment, Petitioner vide office order
dtd.11.08.2021 under Annexure-4 was brought over to the regular
establishment as against the post of Junior Clerk.
4.1. It is contended that while continuing as a regular Junior Clerk
in the establishment of Opposite Party No.4, Petitioner retired from
his services on attainting the age of superannuation on 30.04.2025.
4.2. It is contended that since Petitioner after continuing for around
four years in the regular establishment retired and his qualifying
service fell sort of 10 years, which is the minimum required
qualifying service, to get the benefit of minimum pension under
OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short 'Rules'), Petitioner's claim to
get the pension and pensionary benefit was never considered.
4.3. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-18(4)
of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the decision rendered by this
Court in its judgment dtd.12.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No.11241 of 2020,
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get benefit of minimum pension
and for that purpose so much of service rendered in the work
charged establishment is to be treated as qualifying service in terms
of the Rs.18(4) of the aforesaid rules.
5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State on
the other hand contended that since Petitioner has not made a
comprehensive representation in order to get the benefit, the Writ
Petition with the prayer as made is not entertainable.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner
while continuing as a NMR, he was brought over to the work
charged establishment vide office order dtd.03.12.2009 under
Annexure-2, Petitioner thereafter was brought over to the regular
establishment vide order dtd.11.08.2021 under Annexure-4. While
so continuing Petitioner retired from his services on attainting the
age of superannuation on 30.04.2025. Since admittedly Petitioner
has not rendered more than 10 years of service in the regular
establishment, Petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under
the Rules is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of minimum
pension.
6.1. However, in view of the provisions contained under Rule-18(4)
of the Rules and the decision relied on by the learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, this Court permits the Petitioner make
a fresh representation before Opposite Party No.1 for consideration
of his grievance.
6.2. It is observed that if any such application will be filed within a
period of three (3) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.1 shall do well to
take a lawful decision on the same within a period of three (3)
months from the date of receipt of such application. The order so
passed by Opp. Party No.1 be communicated to the Petitioner.
6.3. It is further observed that while taking such a decision,
relevancy and effect of the provisions contained under Rule-18(4)
of the Rules and the judgment in W.P.(C) No.11241 of 2020 be
taken into consideration. Such a decision be taken and
communicated within a period of four (4) months from the date of
receipt of this order.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
