Orissa High Court
Satyananda Mohapatra vs ) State Of Orissa ..... Opposite Parties on 11 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.3478 of 2025
Satyananda Mohapatra ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prafulla Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
1) State Of Orissa ..... Opposite Parties
2) Engineer In Chief, Water Resources, Represented By Adv. -
Odisha Mr. M.R. Mohanty,
3) Chief Construction Engineer, A.G.A.
Anandapur Barrage Project, Salapada
4) Superintending Engineer, Mr. S.K.Patra,
Anandapur Barrage Division, Salapada Standing Counsel for
5) Secy. To Govt. Of Odisha, Finance O.P.-6
Dept., Bbsr
6) Accountant General A And E,
Odisha
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 11.02.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. S.K. Patra,
learned Standing Counsel for AG Odisha. Perused the Writ Petition
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:-
i). direct the opp. parties to regularise him in service for a
day prior to his superannuation notionally and grant
pension and pensionary benefits under the old rule taking
into consideration his initial appointment 17.12.1982 as has
been given to Sarbeswar Bhujabal, Pitambar Sahoo,
Narusu Pradhan, Chandra Nandi, Jibardhan Bag and
others in the light of the decision in the case of Sarbeswar
Bhujabal v. State of Odisha, O.A.No. 606/2015, which has
been affirmed in W.P.(c) No. 7680/2019, decided on
15.11.2019 and SLP(C)No. 7541/2020,decided vide order
dt. 31.10.2022 and Narusu Pradhan O.A. No. 1189(c)/2006,
which has been affirmed in W.P.(C) No. 5377 of 2010, vide
order dt. 19.12.2011 and SLP in Civil Appeal No. 22498 of
2012, vide order dt. 07.01.2013 and State of Odisha vrs.
Pitambar Sahoo, W.P.(c) No. 24041/2017 (decided on
20.12.2017), which has been affirmed in SLP© Diary
No.30806/2018, Jibardhan Bag v. State of Odisha, W.P (C)
No. 25502 of 2014, decided on 13.07.2022,which has been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP(CIVIL)
Diary No. 5867 of 2023 decided on 24.02.2023 and
Chandra Nandi v. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C)
No.l9550 of 2011(decided on 03.02.2021), which has been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme court vide order dt.
06.05.2022 in SLP(c) No. 21180/2021, State of Orissa and
others vrs. Jyostna Rani Patnaik and others, W.P.(C) No.
1534/2008 and W.P.(C) No.3 8771 of 2020 (Pradip Kumar
Panigrahi Vrs. State of Odisha and Ors.) decided on
30.01.2023, which has been affirmed in SLP(Civil) Diary
No.(S) 50364 of 2023, decided on 02.01.2024 as well as the
benefits given to similarly situated persons vide Annexure-
5;
ii). Pass such other order (s)/direction(s) as would be deem
fit and proper in the bonafide interest of Justice."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner was initially appointed on 17.12.1982 on the NMR basis by
the Executive Engineer, Rengali Canal Division, Salapada. Thereafter,
the Petitioner continued to service uninterruptedly. When the Petitioner
was continuing, the Notification of the Finance Department dated
15.05.1997 had come into force. Accordingly, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that in view of such Notification, the Petitioner
should have been brought over to the Work Charge establishment.
Thereafter his services should have been regularized as has been
provided in the Resolution dated 15.05.1997. However, the same was
not done by the authority by deviating the Notification dated
15.05.1997. On 12.01.2010, the Petitioner was brought over to the
Work Charged establishment. Finally, the Petitioner submitted a
representation before the Opposite parties for regularization of his
service, but the Petitioner was not considerable to be regularized as per
the decision of the Government in the post of Work Sarkar. Finally, the
Petitioner was retired from service on 31.03.2016 on attaining the age
of superannuation from the post of Work Sarkar. In view of the
aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the Opposite Party No.1 be directed to pay the pensionary benefit to
the Petitioner taking into consideration the past service rendered by the
Petitioner both as NMR as well as his service rendered in the Work
Charged establishment. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this
Court for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the retirement
benefit as well as the pensionary benefit as is due and admissible to the
Petitioner.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand
contended that since the Petitioner does not have the qualifying service
period, he is not entitled to pensionary benefit. Accordingly, the
authorities have not considered the case of the Petitioner for grant of
pensionary benefit. However, with regard to payment of retiral dues,
learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the amount as
is due ad admissible to the Petitioner has already been paid to the
Petitioner on his superannuation from service. Accordingly it was
submitted that the Writ Petition was devoid of merit and the same be
dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful
examination of the background facts of the present case and keeping in
view the well settled position of law that once an employee who was
working initially as MMR, thereafter brought over to Work Charged
establishment and finally, he retired from service and his case shall be
considered for payment of pensionary benefit by taking into
consideration as how much period of service rendered in Work charged
and NMR establishment, calculate the minimum qualifying period of
service for grant of pensionary benefit. Such a proposition of law as has
been propounded by this Court has already been accepted by many
judgments of this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position,
this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing
the Opposite Parties examine the case of the petitioner and to calculate
the minimum qualifying service period of the Petitioner taking the
shortfall period from the service period of the Petitioner as work
Charged employee/NMR and in the event it is found that the petitioner
is otherwise entitled to the benefit claimed, the benefit which is due and
admissible to the Petitioner on the basis of his last pay drawn
accordingly, the same be sanctioned and disbursed to the Petitioner
within a period of two months from the date of communication of the
certified copy of this order. In the event, the Petitioner though is getting
any other pensionary benefit, the same shall be surrendered before the
Government. Any decision taken be communicated to the Petitioner
within 10 days of taking such decision.
7. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
