Orissa High Court
Haraprasad Mohapatra And vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 15 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.19080 of 2025
Haraprasad Mohapatra and ..... Petitioners
others
Represented By Adv. -
Tanmay Mishra
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
15.07.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners as well as
learned counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused
the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners with
the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties
to show cause as to why appropriate writ/writs
shall not be issued for directing the Opp.
Parties to regularize the services of the
petitioners with effect from their initial date of
engagement for the purpose of pension and
pensionary benefits and give them pension and
other pensionary benefits treating the entire
period of service as regular employees and on
perusal of causes shown if any or upon
insufficient causes shown make the said rule
absolute and may pass such other order/orders
as deemed just and proper."
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners
that initially the Petitioners were appointed on DLR basis in between
01.02.1991, 01.03.1991 and 01.08.1990 respectively. Thereafter, the
Petitioners were brought over to the work charged establishment
w.e.f. 14.01.2011. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further
contended that although the Petitioners have been working as work
charged employees from 2011 but they have not been taken into fold
to grant pension in accordance with OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 as
has been done in case of many similarly situated persons.
5. Referring to the case of one Pradip Kumar Panigrahi v. State
of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.38771 of 2020 decided on
03.02.2021 and 30.01.2023 respectively), learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioners contended that an identical issue was
involved in the aforesaid writ petition. In case of above noted Pradip
Kumar Panigrahi, the Petitioners initially approached the State
Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1393 of 2009, which was
disposed of vide order dated 12.04.2019. Being aggrieved the order
passed by the Tribunal, the Petitioner, namely, Pradip Kumar
Panigrahi approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.38771 of
2020. A Division Bench of this Court after hearing the counsels
appearing for the parties disposed of the said writ petition vide order
dated 03.02.2021 by passing a speaking order. While disposing of
the writ petition, the Hon'ble Division Bench has specifically
observed that the Petitioner should be treated to have been
regularized in service at least one day prior to superannuation, by
creating supernumerary post, if necessary and accordingly, he shall
be extended with the pensionary benefits as would be admissible to
him and that the entire exercise was directed to be concluded within
a period of two months form the date of communication of a copy of
that order.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners further contended that the order passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the above noted W.P.(C) No.38771 of 2020
was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing an appeal
bearing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).50364 of 2023.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.01.2024 was
pleased to dismiss the SLP preferred by the State-Opposite Parties
with a specific observation in para-3 that the relief granted by this
Court is justified in law as well as equity. Referring to the aforesaid
judgment in Pradip Kumar Panigrahi's case (supra), which has been
confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the case of the
Petitioners are squarely covered by the principle involved in the
above noted judgment and, accordingly, the case of the Petitioners
should also be considered in the light of the aforesaid principle.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on
the other hand, contended that the Petitioners were initially
appointed on DLR basis and thereafter they were brought over to the
work charged establishment. However, the Petitioners have not been
regularized in service. In such view of the matter, learned counsel
for the State submitted that since the Petitioners were not regular
employees, they are not entitled to any pensionary benefits. It was
also contended by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that
since the Petitioners are not regular government employee, they
would not be covered under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. It was
also contended that there is a specific bar in the OCS (Pension)
Rules, 1992 with regard to coverage of the DLR employees under
the aforesaid rules. With regard to the order passed by this Court in
Pradip Kumar Panigrahi' case (supra), which was eventually
confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned Additional
Standing Counsel submitted that while disposing the State Appeal,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally observed that the question of
law is kept open to be decided in appropriate case. In such view of
the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the
question of law which is the larger issue is required to be finally
adjudicated and the same has not been adjudicated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court. On such ground, learned Additional Standing Counsel
submitted that the Petitioners are not entitled to any pensionary
benefits flowing from the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 as the DLR
employees as well as the work charged employees are not covered
under the aforesaid pension rules. Accordingly, it is submitted that
the writ petition of the Petitioners are devoid of merit and, as such,
the same should be dismissed at the threshold.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the contentions
raised by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties
and further on a careful examination of the background facts as well
as the materials on record, this Court observes that initially the
Petitioners were engaged on DLR basis in the year 1990 to 1991 and
thereafter they were brought over to the work charged establishment
only in the year 2011. Thus, the Petitioners after working
continuously for more than three decades has not been treated as
regular employee and, as such, they have not been included to get
the pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to such employees.
In the aforesaid context, this Court examined the order passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in Pradip Kumar Panigrahi' case
(supra). On a careful consideration of the said order passed by this
Division Bench of this Court, this Court found that the factual
background of the aforesaid case is almost identical to the facts of
the Petitioners' case. Moreover, this Court in many similar cases had
taken on identical view as has been taken by the Division Bench in
Pradip Kumar Panigrahi' case (supra). It would also be gainful to
refer to the judgment in State of Orissa v. Narusu Pradhan
(W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010) wherein the order passed by this Court
directing one day regularization before retirement of employee and
to grant pensionary benefit on the basis of such regularization has
already been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On perusal of
the materials on record, it appears that the Petitioners have already
approached the Opposite Party No.1-The Principal Secretary to
Government Works Department, Bhubaneswar by filing a detailed
representation on 16.04.2025 under Annexure-5 series to the writ
petition. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners further
contended that no decision has been taken on such representation of
the Petitioners.
9. Taking into consideration the factual background of the case
and keeping in view the position of law as has been analysed
hereinabove, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ
petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party
No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioners under
Annexure-5 series within two months from the date of
communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioners.
Further, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the
representation of the Petitioners in terms of the analysis made
hereinabove as well as in terms of the order passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Pradip Kumar Panigrahi' case (supra) and
the representation of the Petitioners shall be disposed of by passing a
speaking and reasoned order within the aforesaid time stipulation. In
the event it is found by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Petitioners'
case is similar to that of Pradip Kumar Panigrahi' case (supra) and
in the absence of any other legal impediment, the Opposite Party
No.1 shall do well to grant the pensionary benefits in favour of the
Petitioners by regularizing their services within a period of eight
weeks from the date of taking such decision as has been directed
hereinabove. The final decision so taken on such representation
shall be communicated to the Petitioners within two weeks from the
date of taking such decision.
10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is
disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Digitally Signed Page 6 of 6.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Jul-2025 12:57:12
