Orissa High Court
Amiya Kumar Pattanaik vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 2 January, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31244 of 2024
Amiya Kumar Pattanaik .... Petitioner
Represented By Adv.
Ms. Jaspreet Kaur
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Represented By ASC
Ms. Gayatri Patra
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
ORDER
Order 02.01.2025
No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard learned counsels for the Parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the
following prayer:-
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition call upon
the opp.parties to show cause as to why the writ petition
shall not be allowed and if no cause is shown or
insufficient cause is shown and after hearing the council
for both the sides allow the petition with cost.
i. To issue appropriate nature of direction to the
opp.parties, particularly opp.party No.-3 to grant pension
// 2 //
and retirement benefits in favour of the petitioner within
a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
ii. To pass any other order/orders which would give
complete relief to the petitioner keeping in view of the
above facts and circumstances of the case.
And pass such other order/orders as would be deem fit
and proper.
And for which kind act the petitioner as in duty bound
shall ever pray."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that SA pension and pensionary benefits be granted
under the old rule in the light of decision in the case of
State of Odisha vrs. Pitambar Sahoo, W.P.(C) No.24041
of 2017 (decided on 20.12.2017), which has been affirmed
in SLP(C) Diary No.30806 of 2018 and Chandra Nandi
vrs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.19950 of
2011(decided on 03.02.2021) and Premananda Tripathy
vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.27950 of 2019 (decided
on 03.02.2021) and Narusu Pradhan, SLP No.22498 of
2012, State of Orissa and others vrs. Jyostna Rani
Pattanaik and others, W.P.(C) No.1534 of 2008, State of
Orissa vrs. Pitambar Mohapatra, W.P.(C) No.13483 of
2012 and State of Orissa vrs. Radheshyam Mohanta,
W.P.(C) No.12377 of 2009, which has been affirmed in
// 3 //
SLP(C) No.36038 of 2020 as well as the benefits given to
similar persons.
5. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the Petitioner-Amiya Kumar Pattanaik
was initially engaged as D.L.R. under Government of
Odisha in the office of the Executive Engineer, M.I. Sub-
Division, Khordha under M.I. division, Khurdha in the
year 1990 and was subsequently brought over to work
charged establishment with effect from 2011 by virtue of
the order No.992 dated 26.02.2011 of the Executive
Engineer Minor Irrigation Division, Khurda and
continued to work under the work charged
establishment. The Petitioner had already worked for
more than 12 years in Work Charged Establishment prior
to its superannuation.
6. Further, learned counsel for be Petitioner submits that
this Court in WPC(OAC) No.5494 of 2013 by order dated
14.07.2021 analyzing various points of law directed the
State Government to regularize in establishment post
from the times the petitioners completed five years of
continuous service in work charged establishment and
the period from that time till the date of retirement be
// 4 //
counted towards the pension and direction was issued to
grant pensionary benefits to the employees. He further
submits that in similar matter, Government had
challenged the order of the learned tribunal, approached
this Court in filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C)
No.5377 of 2010 and this Court by order dated 19.12.2011
referring the judgment rendered in O.J.C. No.1162 of 1999
(State of Orissa vrs. Jhuma Parida and others) and O.J.C.
No.11028 of 1999 (State of Orissa vrs. Sudarsan Sahoo
and others) confirmed the order passed by the learned
tribunal and dismissed the writ application.
7. In course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner wants to
make a fresh representation before the authority
concerned with a direction from this Court to the
authority to consider the case of the Petitioner within a
stipulated period of time.
8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that she has no objection if the Petitioner is
permitted to file a fresh representation before the
authority concerned with a direction to the authority
concerned to consider the representation of the Petitioner
// 5 //
in accordance with law within the stipulated period of
time.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the respective parties and on careful
consideration of the background of the fact of the
Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the
Writ Petition by directing the Petitioner to file a fresh
representation ventilating his grievances along with
certified copy of this order before the Asst. Executive
Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub Division, Khurdha
/Opposite Party No.3 within three weeks from today, In
such event, the Asst. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation
Sub Division, Khurdha /Opposite Party No.3 shall
consider and dispose of the representation to be filed by
the present Petitioner in accordance with law within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the
representation. The Asst. Executive Engineer, Minor
Irrigation Sub Division, Khurdha /Opposite Party No.3
shall pass a reasoned order within the aforesaid time
stipulated. Decision so taken on the same shall be
communicated to the Petitioner within a period of one
week thereafter.
// 6 //
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Sumitra
Location: High Court of Orissa,Cuttack
