Orissa High Court
Jadunath Patnaik vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 29 January, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.861 of 2025
Jadunath Patnaik ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prafulla Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Engr In Chief, Water Resources Represented By Adv. -
3) Chief Engr, Minor Irrigation, Bbsr Ms.Babita Kumari
4) Addl. Chief Engr, Eastern Minor Sahoo, AGA
Irrigation Circle, Keonjhar
5) Supdt. Engr, Minor Irrigation Mr.S.K.Patra, Standing
Div., Anandapur Counsel for A.G.Odisha
6) Secy To Govt. Of Odisha, Finance
Dept., Bbsr
7) Accountant General(a And E) ,
Bbsr
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
29.01.2025
Order No.
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, therefore that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to;
i) Direct the Opp.Parties to grant pension and pensionary
benefits under the Orissa Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1992 on the basis of his initial date of
appointment 01.06.1984 under the Govt. in W.R.
Department along with work charge and regular estt.
as has been given to similarly situated persons in the
light of the decision in the case of Narusu Pradhan,
O.A.No.1189 (C) of 2006, which has been confirmed
in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010 vide order dated
19.12.2011 and SLP in Civil Appeal No.22498 of
2012, vide order dated 07.01.2013 and State of
Odisha vrs. Sarbeswar Bhujabal W.P.(C)
No.7680/2019, vide order dated 15.11.2019 which
has been confirmed in SLP(C) 7541/2020, order
dated 31.10.2022 and State of Odisha vrs. Pitambar
Sahoo, W.P.(C) 24041 (decided on 20.12.2017),
which has been affirmed in SLP(C) Diary
No.30806/2018 and Chandra Nandi v. State of
Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.19550 of 2011
(decided on 03.02.2021), which has been affirmed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
06.05.2022 in SLP(C) No.21180/2021, Radheshyam
Mohanta, W.P.(C) No.12377/2009, which has been
affirmed in SLP(C) No.36038/2010, W.P.(C) No.
1534/2008 State of Orissa vrs. Pitambar Mohapatra,
W.P.(C) No.13483/2012 and thereby quashing the
order dated 15.09.2022 vide Annexure-7;
ii) Pass such other order/direction(s) as would be deem fit
and proper;"
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner was initially appointed on 01.06.1984 in the post of Progress
Recorder by the Superintending Engineer, Eastern Minor Irrigation
Circle, Keonjhar on NMR 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 20.04.2010, the Petitioner was
brought over to the Work Charged establishment. The Petitioner
submitted a representation before the Opposite parties for regularization
of his service. Finally on 23.11.2017 the service of the Petitioner was
regularized as per the decision of the Government in the post of Khalasi
(Group-D). Finally, the Petitioner was retired from service on
31.01.2021 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, 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 Petitioner to file a representation stating therein all the grounds
along with the relevant documents before the Opposite Parties within a
period of two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite
Parties shall consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner
in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks by passing a
speaking and reasoned order. The final order so passed be
communicated to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the
date 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
RKS
Location: High Court of Orissa
