Orissa High Court

Ashok Kumar Mohanty And Others vs President on 13 January, 2025

Author: S.K. Sahoo

Bench: S.K. Sahoo

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 21588 of 2024, W.P.(C) No. 24094 of 2024,
W.P.(C) No. 24095 of 2024, W.P.(C) No. 24103 of 2024,
W.P.(C) No. 24216 of 2024, W.P.(C) No. 24240 of 2024,
W.P.(C) No. 24256 of 2024, W.P.(C) No. 24424 of 2024,
W.P.(C) No. 24441 of 2024 & W.P.(C) Nos. 25918 of
2024
________________

Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.
---------------------
In W.P.(C) No. 21588 of 2024

Ashok Kumar Mohanty and others .... Petitioners

Mr.S.K. Ojha, Advocate

-versus-

President, National Water
Development Agency,
Ministry of Jalshakti, Government .... Opp. Parties
of India and others
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr.
Alok Kumar Mohanty, CGC

In W.P.(C) No. 24094 of 2024

Radhu Charan Behura .... Petitioner

Mr.S.K. Ojha, Advocate

-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opp. Parties

Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr.
Manoj Kumar Pati, CGC

Page 1 of 21
In W.P.(C) No. 24095 of 2024

Surendra Nath Gouda .... Petitioner

Mr.S.K. Ojha, Advocate

-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opp. Parties

Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr.
D. Gochhayat, CGC

In W.P.(C) No. 24103 of 2024

Kailash Chandra Samal .... Petitioner

Mr.S.K. Ojha, Advocate

-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opp. Parties

Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr.
Biswajit Maharana, CGC

In W.P.(C) No. 24216 of 2024

Jugal Kishore Muduli .... Petitioner

Mr.S.K. Ojha, Advocate

-versus-

Union of India and others .... Opp. Parties

Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr.
D. Gochhayat, CGC

In W.P.(C) No. 24240 of 2024

Sk.Arif Hussain .... Petitioner

Mr.S.K. Ojha, Advocate

-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opp. Parties

Page 2 of 21
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr.
B.K.Pardhi, CGC

In W.P.(C) No. 24256 of 2024

Ramanath Panda .... Petitioner

Mr.S.K. Ojha, Advocate

-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opp. Parties

Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr.
M.K. Pradhan, CGC

In W.P.(C) No. 24424 of 2024

Udaya Kumar Rath .... Petitioner

Mr.S.K. Ojha, Advocate

-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opp. Parties

Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Ms.
S.Patro, CGC

In W.P.(C) No. 24441 of 2024

Madan Mohan Dhal .... Petitioner

Mr.S.K. Ojha, Advocate

-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opp. Parties

Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr.
M.K. Pati, CGC

In W.P.(C) No. 25918 of 2024

Ananta Prasad Patra .... Petitioner

Mr.S.K. Ojha, Advocate

Page 3 of 21
-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opp. Parties

Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Ms.
S.Patro, CGC

---------------------
P R E S E N T:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 13.01.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BY THE BENCH Since common questions of law and fact are involved

in all these writ petitions and one common impugned order has

been challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions, with

the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties,

they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners, who are the retired employees of National

Water Development Agency have filed these writ petitions

challenging the common order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the

learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack

in O.A. No.50 of 2021, O.A. No. 215 of 2023, O.A. No.194 of

2024, O.A. No. 610 of 2022, O.A. No.608 of 2022, O.A. No.613

of 2022, O.A. No. 213 of 2023, O.A. No.25 of 2024, O.A. No. 413

of 2024 and O.A. No. 612 of 2022 under Annexure-1, whereby

Page 4 of 21
the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the Original

Applications.

3. The short fact of the case is that in the year 1982 as a

matter of Policy, the Government of India set up National Water

Development Agency (in short, 'NWDA') under the Ministry of

Jalshakti, Government of India, Department of Water Resources,

River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, as an autonomous

society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The

basic ground for creation of NWDA is to carry out detailed

studies, surveys investigations etc. of peninsular Component and

Himalayan Component for water resources development and

linking of rivers. The NWDA is fully owned and financed by the

Government of India and the Rules/regulations framed by

Government of India are mutatis and mutandis applicable to the

employees of the NWDA. The petitioners were the retired

employees of NWDA, which was established as a Society in July

1982 and was registered under the Societies Registration Act,

1860 and functioning under the administrative control of Ministry

of Water Resources to carry out detailed studies, surveys and

investigations in respect of Peninsular Component of National

Perspective for Water Resources Development. For proper

discharge of its day-to-day functions/smooth running, NWDA

framed rules and regulations known as "Bye-laws of the National

Page 5 of 21
Water Development Agency". The grievance of the petitioners

was that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public

Grievances and Pension, Dept. of Pension and Pensioners'

Welfare, New Delhi issued Office Memorandum No. 4/1/87PIC-I

dated 01.05.1987 for changeover of the Central Government

employees from the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF)

to Pension Scheme-Implementation of the recommendations of

the fourth Central Pay Commission. In the said Office

Memorandum, it was specifically stated that if no option is

received by the date so fixed, specifically requesting to continue

under the CPF Scheme, the employees concerned will be deemed

to have come over to Pension Scheme. In the said Office

Memorandum, it was specifically stated that if no option is

received by the date so fixed, specifically requesting to continue

under the CPF Scheme, the employees concerned will be deemed

to have come over to Pension Scheme. Further, it has been also

indicated that in the event any organization framed their own

CPF Rules for their employees, they will be governed under such

rules. It is stated that all the petitioners were the beneficiaries of

CPF. As per Rule-28 of the Bye-Law framed by the NWDA, all the

OMs/Circulars/Orders issued by the Govt. of India from time to

time are mutatis mutandis applicable to the employees of the

NWDA as long as no specific regulation has been framed

Page 6 of 21
regulating the service conditions, pay and allowances of

employees of NWDA. Therefore, the petitioners ought to have

been treated to have switched over to the Pension Scheme and,

upon their retirement, they should have been paid pension and

pensionary benefits instead of the benefits flowing from CPF.

Hence, the petitioners have filed the aforesaid Original

Applications before the learned Tribunal praying for direction to

the respondents to treat them as employees under Pension

Rules, 1972 in terms of the Office Memorandum dated

01.05.1987 and grant them pension and pensionary benefits with

arrears and interest thereon.

4. The Opposite Parties appeared in the said Original

Application and filed their counter affidavit wherein it is stated

that the NWDA is a society established in the year 1982 and

registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. For proper

discharge of its day-to-day functions/smooth running, NWDA

framed rules and regulations known as Bye-laws of the National

Water Development Agency. Bye-Law 26(a) of NWDA, inter-alia,

stipulates that the emoluments structure i.e. pay scales,

allowances and revision thereof for the employees of NWDA will

be adopted with the approval of the Govt. of India in consultation

with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). Bye-

Law 28 of the NWDA states that till such time as the Agency

Page 7 of 21
framed its own working rules and regulations governing service

conditions of the employees of the Agency, the rules and orders

applicable to the Central Government employees shall apply

mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Agency subject to such

modifications as may be made by the Governing Body from time

to time. As per Rule 27 (a), the Governing Body of the NWDA

Society shall exercise all executive and financial powers of the

Society including those vested in or conferred or to be conferred

on it by or under any Statue subject nevertheless in respect of

expenditure of such limitations as the Government of India may

impose from time to time.

5. It appears that during the hearing of the said Original

Application, the learned Tribunal found that similarly placed

employees of NWDA approached the learned Central

Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi in O.A.

No.2037 of 2008 which was allowed vide order dated

08.02.2010. Challenging the said order, the Government of India

approached the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.3197 of

2010 and the High Court of Delhi has been pleased to dispose of

the said writ petition holding as follows:

"20. The gist of the above discussion is that the
impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2010
passed by the Tribunal is faulty and deserves to be

Page 8 of 21
set aside and we do so by formally directing that the
impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2010
allowing the Original Application filed by the
respondents is set aside. However, in view of the
discussion contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 above,
we direct the Ministry of Water Resources to consult
the matter of the issuance of an order similar to the
Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 for the
employees of NWDA with the Department of
Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare and thereafter take
an appropriate decision in said regard within four
months from the date of the receipt of the copy of
this order. Needless to state, while taking necessary
decision, the Ministry of Water Resources and
Department of Pensions and Pensioners' Welfare
shall examine the concerns raised by the
Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance in
the letter dated 16.03.2000."

6. It appears that in compliance of the aforesaid order, the

Opposite Parties considered the issues relating to grant of

pension and pensionary benefit, but the same was rejected vide

Office Memorandum dated 24.05.2013. The aggrieved

employees of NWDA filed S.L.P.(C) Nos. 3106- 3107 of 2012 and

which were dismissed with the following observation:

"14. In light of the facts and circumstances of this
case and the submissions made by the learned

Page 9 of 21
counsel on both sides, it can be concluded that
NWDA had framed its regulation the CPF Rules, 1982
and they were duly approved by the Governing Body
of NWDA. As NWDA is an autonomous body under
the Ministry of Water Resources, it has framed it own
bye-laws governing the employees. It has been time
and again reiterated that the Court must adopt an
attitude of total non-interference or minimal
interference in the matter of interpretation of Rules
framed by autonomous institutions. In Chairman &
MD, Kerala SRTC vs. K.O. Varghese and Others,
(2007) 0 SCC 231, this Court held:
"KSRTC is an autonomous corporation
established under the Road Transport
Corporation Act, 1950, It can regulate the
service of its employees by making
appropriate regulations it that behalf. The
High Court is not correct in thinking that
there is any compulsion on KSRTC on the
mere adoption of Part III of KSR to
automatically give all enhancements in
pension and other benefits given by the
State Government to its employees."

Thus, as the appellants are governed by the CPF
Rules, 1982, the O.M. applicable to Central
Government employees is not applicable to them.
15. On the issue of parity between the employees of
NWDA and Central Government employees, even if it
is assumed that the 1982 Rules did not exist or were
not applicable on the date of the O.M. i.e.
01.05.1987, the relevant date of parity, the principle
of parity cannot be applicable to the employees of
NWDA. NWDA cannot be treated as an

Page 10 of 21
instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the
Constitution merely on the basis that its funds are
granted by the Central Government. In Zee Telefilms
Ltd. & Another v. Union of India & Ors., (2005) 4
SCC 649, it was held by this Court that the
autonomous bodies having some nexus with the
Government by itself would not bring them within
the sweep of the expression 'State' and each case
must be determined on its own merits. Thus, the
plea of the employees of NWDA to be treated at par
with their counterparts in Central Government under
sub rule (6) (iv) of Rule 2009 of General Financial
Rules, merely on the basis of funding is not
applicable. "

7. It appears that one of the employees of NWDA, namely,

Sri Rohit Kumar Sethi, filed OA No. 4242 of 2018 before learned

Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi

praying for grant of pension and pensionary benefits. After

carefully examining the issues involved in all the cases and the

argument placed in support thereof with reference to the Bye law

and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos.

learned Tribunal came to hold that there are no substantial

grounds to defer from the view already taken in the above cases,

especially in view of the clear-cut findings of the Hon'ble Apex

Court that the employees NWDA are governed by NWDA CPF

Page 11 of 21
Rules, 1982 (in short, 'CPF Rules, 1982'), the Office

Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 is not applicable to them and

that, the employees of NWDA are not the Central Government

employees at par with their counterparts and hence their claim of

parity with Central Government Employees is defeated and

accordingly dismissed the Original Application.

8. When the matter was first taken up on 11.09.2024, a

submission was made on behalf of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that though in the decision rendered by the learned

Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.

No.50 of 2021, it was that the employees of the NWDA are to be

governed by CPF Rules, 1982 and not Contributory Provident

Fund (India) Rules 1962, but NWDA has not framed any CPF

Rules, 1982 and such a rule is not in existence and therefore,

the petitioners are to be governed by CPF Rules, 1962 and

accordingly, we asked for specific instruction to be obtained as

to whether there is any such rules, namely, "National Water

Development Agency Contributory Fund Rules, 1982" or not and

if it is in existence, produce the copy of the said CPF Rules,

1982. Accordingly, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has

produced before us the aforesaid 1982 Rules.

9. Today, during course of hearing, learned Deputy Solicitor

General of India has brought to the notice of this Court the

Page 12 of 21
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil

Appeal Nos.712-713 of 2014, Civil Appeal Nos.714-715 of 2014,

Civil Appeal No.716 of 2014, Writ Petition (Civil) No.556 of 2012

and Writ Petition (Civil) No.518 of 2012 wherein in paragraph-14

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note of the CPF Rules,

1982 and has been pleased to hold that it can be concluded that

NWDA had framed its regulation CPF Rules, 1982 and they were

duly approved by the Governing Body of NWDA. As NWDA is an

autonomous body under the Ministry of Water Resources, it has

framed its own Bye-laws governing the service conditions of its

employees. It has been time and again reiterated that the Court

must adopt an attitude of total non-interference or minimal

interference in the matter of interpretation of Rules framed by

autonomous institutions.

10. Therefore, in view of the CPF Rules, 1982 produced before

this Court by the learned DSGI so also the observation of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.712-713 of 2014,

Civil Appeal Nos.714-715 of 2014, Civil Appeal No.716 of 2014,

Writ Petition (Civil) No.556 of 2012 and Writ Petition (Civil)

No.518 of 2012, we are not inclined to accept the submission

made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that NWDA has

not framed NWDA CPF Rules, 1982.The clear cut findings of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court are that the employees of NWDA are

Page 13 of 21
governed by CPF Rules, 1982 and the O.M. dated 01.05.1987 is

not applicable to them and that the employees of NWDA are not

the Central Government employees, at par with their counter

parts and hence, their claim of parity with Central Government

employees is defeated. Nothing has been produced before us to

take a different view.

11. In the case of The State of Maharashtra and others

-Vrs.- Bhagwan and others reported in (2022) 4 Supreme

Court Cases 193, the question that cropped up for

consideration is whether the employees of WALMI, which is an

independent autonomous entity registered under the Societies

Registration Act, are entitled to the pensionary benefits at par

with the State Government employees. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court held as follows:

"24. While answering the aforesaid question, few
decisions of this Court on the inference of the courts
in the policy decision having financial implications
and whether the employees of the board/societies,
who are autonomous bodies can claim parity in the
pay scale and/or other benefits which may be
available to the government employees, are
required to be considered.
25. In T.M. Sampath v. Ministry of Water Resources
[T.M. Sampath v. Ministry of Water Resources,
(2015) 5 SCC 333 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 146] , the

Page 14 of 21
employees of National Water Development Agency
(NWDA), an autonomous body under the aegis and
control of the Ministry of Water Resources claimed
the pensionary benefits on a par with the Central
Government employees. Refusing to allow such
pensionary benefits to the employees of NWDA on a
par with the Central Government employees, in
paras 16 and 17, it was observed and held as
under: (SCC pp. 345-46)
"16. On the issue of parity between the
employees of NWDA and Central
Government employees, even if it is
assumed that the 1982 Rules did not exist
or were not applicable on the date of the
OM i.e. 1-5-1987, the relevant date of
parity, the principle of parity cannot be
applicable to the employees of NWDA.
NWDA cannot be treated as an
instrumentality of the State under Article
12 of the Constitution merely on the basis
that its funds are granted by the Central
Government. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v.
Union of India [Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union
of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649] , it was held
by this Court that the autonomous bodies
having some nexus with the Government
by itself would not bring them within the
sweep of the expression "State" and each
case must be determined on its own
merits. Thus, the plea of the employees of

Page 15 of 21
NWDA to be treated on a par with their
counterparts in the Central Government
under sub-rule (6)(iv) of Rule 209 of the
General Financial Rules, merely on the
basis of funding is not applicable.
17. Even if it is presumed that NWDA is
"State" under Article 12 of the
Constitution, the appellants have failed to
prove that they are on a par with their
counterparts, with whom they claim parity.
As held by this Court in State (UT of
Chandigarh) v. Krishan Bhandari [State
(UT of Chandigarh) v. Krishan Bhandari,
(1996) 11 SCC 348 : 1997 SCC (L&S)
391], the claim to equality can be claimed
when there is discrimination by the State
between two persons who are similarly
situated. The said discrimination cannot be
invoked in cases where discrimination
sought to be shown is between acts of two
different authorities functioning as State
under Article 12. Thus, the employees of
NWDA cannot be said to be "Central
Government employees" as stated in the
OM for its applicability."
26. As per the law laid down by this Court in a
catena of decisions, the employees of the
autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of
right, the same service benefits on a par with the
government employees. Merely because such

Page 16 of 21
autonomous bodies might have adopted the
Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing
Council there may be a representative of the
Government and/or merely because such institution
is funded by the State/Central Government,
employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a
matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central
Government employees. This is more particularly,
when the employees of such autonomous bodies are
governed by their own Service Rules and service
conditions. The State Government and the
autonomous Board/body cannot be put on a par.
27. In Punjab State Coop. Milk Producers Federation
Ltd. v. Balbir Kumar Walia [Punjab State Coop. Milk
Producers Federation Ltd. v. Balbir Kumar Walia,
(2021) 8 SCC 784 : (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 838] , in
para 32, it is observed as under : (SCC p. 805)
"32. The Central or State Government is
empowered to levy taxes to meet out the
expenses of the State. It is always a
conscious decision of the Government as
to how much taxes have to be levied so as
to not cause excessive burden on the
citizens. But the Boards and Corporations
have to depend on either their own
resources or seek grant from the
Central/State Government, as the case
may be, for their expenditures. Therefore,
the grant of benefits of higher pay scale to
the Central/State Government employees

Page 17 of 21
stand on different footing than grant of
pay scale by an instrumentality of the
State."
28. As per the settled proposition of law, the Court
should refrain from interfering with the policy
decision, which might have a cascading effect and
having financial implications. Whether to grant
certain benefits to the employees or not should be
left to the expert body and undertakings and the
court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of certain
benefits may result in a cascading effect having
adverse financial consequences.
29. In the present case, Walmi being an
autonomous body, registered under the Societies
Registration Act, the employees of Walmi are
governed by their own Service Rules and conditions,
which specifically do not provide for any pensionary
benefits; the Governing Council of Walmi has
adopted the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules except
the Pension Rules. Therefore, as such a conscious
policy decision has been taken not to adopt the
Pension Rules applicable to the State Government
employees; that the State Government has taken
such a policy decision in the year 2005 not to
extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of
the aided institutes, boards, corporations, etc.; and
the proposal of the then Director of Walmi to extend
the pensionary benefits to the employees of Walmi
has been specifically turned down by the State
Government. Considering the aforesaid facts and

Page 18 of 21
circumstances, the High Court is not justified in
directing the State to extend the pensionary
benefits to the employees of Walmi, which is an
independent autonomous entity.
30. The observations made by the High Court that
as the salary and allowances payable to the
employees of Walmi are being paid out of the
Consolidated Fund of the State and/or that the
Walmi is getting grant from the Government are all
irrelevant considerations, so far as extending the
pensionary benefits to its employees is concerned.
Walmi has to run its administration from its own
financial resources. Walmi has no financial powers
of imposing any tax like a State and/or the Central
Government and Walmi has to depend upon the
grants to be made by the State Government.
31. Now, so far as the observations made by the
High Court that the amount available with Walmi
and deposited with EPF towards the employee's
contribution itself is sufficient to meet the financial
liability of the pensionary benefits to the employees
and, therefore, there is no justification and/or
reasonable basis for the State Government to refuse
to extend the benefit of pension to the retired
employees of Walmi is concerned, it is to be noted
that merely because Walmi has a fund with itself, it
cannot be a ground to extend the pensionary
benefits. Grant of pensionary benefits is not a one-
time payment. Grant of pensionary benefits is a
recurring monthly expenditure and there is a

Page 19 of 21
continuous liability in future towards the pensionary
benefits. Therefore, merely because at one point of
time, Walmi might have certain funds does not
mean that for all times to come, it can bear such
burden of paying pension to all its employees. In
any case, it is ultimately for the State Government
and the Society (Walmi) to take their own policy
decision whether to extend the pensionary benefits
to its employees or not. The interference by the
judiciary in such a policy decision having financial
implications and/or having a cascading effect is not
at all warranted and justified.
32. In view of the above discussion and for the
reasons stated, the impugned common judgment
and order [Sudhakar Namdeo Gaikwad v. State of
Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21218] passed
by the High Court directing the State to extend the
pensionary benefits to the employees of Walmi is
unsustainable, both in law and on facts.
Accordingly, the impugned common judgment and
order [Sudhakar Namdeo Gaikwad v. State of
Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21218] passed
by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set
aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. It is
held that the employees of Walmi, which is an
independent autonomous body registered under the
Societies Act are not entitled to the pensionary
benefits."

Page 20 of 21
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity or

illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Central

Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack under Annexure-

1 warranting our interference in these writ petitions.

Accordingly, all these writ petitions stand dismissed. No

orders as to costs.
,

.................................
S.K. Sahoo, J.

Chittaranjan Dash, J. I Agree

.................................. Chittaranjan Dash, J.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 13th January, 2025/PKSahoo

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA