Orissa High Court
Duryodhan Behera vs ) State Of Orissa ..... Opposite Parties on 12 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.32564 of 2024
Duryodhan Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prafulla Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
1) State Of Orissa ..... Opposite Parties
2) Engineer-in-chief, Rural Works Represented By Adv. -
Dept., Odisha Ms. B.Sahu, A.G.A.
3) Chief Construction Engineer,
Central Rural Works Circle, Bbsr Mr. S.K.Patra, Standing
4) Superintending Engineer, Rural Counsel for AG Odisha
Works Division, Bbsr
5) Secretary To Govt. Of Odisha,
Finance Dept., Odisha
6) Accountant General (a Dne E) ,
Odisha
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 12.02.2025
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 grant/sanction pension and
pensionary benefits under OCS(Pension Rules) 1992 taking in to
consideration his initial date of appointment O 1.10 .1989 along
with regular service as has been granted to other similarly
situated persons in the light of the decision in the case of 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, 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 Chandra Nandi v. State of
Orissa, W.P.(C) No. 19550/2011, which has been affirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme court vide order dt. 06.05.2022 in SLP(c) No.
21180/2021, 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, Radhashyama Mohanta vide order
dated 20.2.2009 passed in O.A. No. 412/2008, which has been
affirmed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 12377/2009 and
Apex Court, State of Orissa vrs. Pitambar Mahapatra, W.P.(c)
No.13483/2012, State of Orissa and others vrs. Jyostna Rani
Patnaik and others, W.P.(C) No. 1534/2008 within a stipulated
period of time
II) Pass such other order (s)/direction(s) as would be deem fit &
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 01.10.1989 in the post of Clerical
by the Superintending Engineer, Central Circle Rural Works,
Bhubaneswar on DLR basis. 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 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 11.02.2011, 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 27.02.2020 the service of the Petitioner was
regularized as per the decision of the Government in the post of Jr.Clerk
(Group-C). Finally, the Petitioner was retired from service on
31.05.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of
Jr.Clerk. 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 DLR 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 DLR, thereafter brought over to Work Charged
establishment and finally, his service was regularized 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 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/DLR to calculate the
minimum qualifying service period, 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
