Orissa High Court
Mayadhar Rana vs ) State Of Odisha ..... 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.3489 of 2025
Mayadhar Rana ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prafulla Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Engineer-in-chief, Water Resouces, Represented By Adv. -
Odisha. Mr. M.R. Mohanty,
3) Chief Engineer And Basin Manager, A.G.A.
Baitarani Basin, Keonjhar.
4) Addl. Chief Engineer, Salapada Mr. S.K.Patra, Standing
Irrigation Circle, Salapada. Counsel for O.P.-7
5) Superintending Engineer, Baitarani
Irrigation Division, Salapada.
6) Secretary To Govt. Of Odisha,
Finance Department.
7) 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). Admit and allow this writ petition and
ii).Direct the opp. parties to sanction pension and
pensionary benefits under the Orissa Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1992 by counting so much of past
service rendered in work charged establishment taking
in to account his initial appointment 10.03.1982 under
the Govt, of Odisha as has been granted to other
similarly placed employees in the light of the
principles decided in Pitambar Mohapatra, O.A.No.
3574(c)/2011, which has been affirmed in W.P.(c) No,
13483/2012 vide order dt. 14.9.2017 and Pitambar
Sahoo, O.A.No. 4189(c) of 2013, decided on
18.4.2017, which has been affirmed in W.P.(c) No.
24041 of 2017 , decided vide order dt.20.12.2017 as
well as Apex court in SLP(c) Diary No. 30806/2018
decided vide order dt.10.09.2018 and Sarbeswar
Bhujabal,(O.A.No. 606/2015), which has been
affirmed vide order dt. 15.11.2019 in W.P.(c) No.
7680/2019, and Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP(c)
No,7541 of 2020, decided on 31,10.2022 and Narusu
Pradhan vrs. State in O.A.No. 1189(c)/2006, which
has been affirmed by in W.P.(c) No. 5377/2010 and
SLP(c) cc No.22498/2012 within a stipulated period of
time and
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 10.03.1982 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. Finally, on 27.03.2023, the service of
the Petitioner was regularised as per the decision of the government
in the post of Night Watchman (Group-D). Finally, the petitioner was
retired from service on 31.01.2024 on attaining the age of
superannuation from the post of Watchman. 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
