Orissa High Court
Bhasan Sekhar Pati vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 21 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.20101 of 2025
Bhasan Sekhar Pati ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Soumendra Pattanaik
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
U.R. Jena, A.G.A.
S.K. Patra, Standing
Counsel for the A.G.
(A&E), Odisha
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
21.07.2025
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 Govt. Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties and
Mr.S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel for the A.G. (A&E),
Odisha. Perused the writ application as well as the documents
annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"Therefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to;
i) direct the Opp.party to grant pension, gratuity
and other post retiral benefits as due and
admissible to him by counting his entire period
of service including the service period as NMR
typist (01.08.1983) and work charge (28.2.2009)
for the purpose of pension as he was finally
brought over to the regular establishment
(Annexure-9) on 23.08.2021
ii) direct the Opp.party to protect the pay and other
allowances drawn by the petitioner prior to his
appointment on regular basis i.e. on 23.08.2021
and the petitioner shall be allowed the pay being
drawn by him immediately prior to his
regularization as his basic pay as on 23.08.2021.
And
iii) Direct the Opp.party, the regular service of the
petionter be recalled from the date of completion
of 10 years of service from his initial
appointment on 01.08.1983 on NMR basis.
And
iv) direct the Opp.party to pay the unutilized leave
salary by counting the entire period of service
from the date of initial joining.
And
v) Any other order/direction be issued give
complete relief to the petitioner."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the Petitioner initially joined as an NMR 01.08.1983 on
completion of 10 years of service, the petitioner approached the
O.A.T. by filing O.A. with a prayer for regularization of his
service. The said O.A. bearing No.2569(C) of 1996 was disposed
of vide order dated 25.09.1996 with a direction to absorb the
Petitioner against a regular post of Typist under Annexure-1 to
the writ application. Since, no decision was taken pursuant to the
order of the learned Tribunal dated 25.09.1996, the Petitioner
filed another O.A. bearing O.A. No.2310(C) of 1991. The 2nd
O.A. was disposed of on 14.08.1997 with a direction to absorb
the Petitioner in a regular post and pay him salary and other
benefits in terms of the scheme which is likely to be floated by
the government under Annexure-2 to the writ application.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
on 15.05.1997, a scheme was floated for absorption of
NMR/DLR/JC Workers in the Regular Establishment. The
Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Typist on 25.06.1998
pursuant to order under Annexure-4. Thereafter, on 04.12.1998,
such order of appointment was withdrawn. Being aggrieved by
such conduct, the Petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C)
No.13394 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of on
30.01.2009 with a direction to the department to take steps for
the regularization of the service of the Petitioner.
6. Finally, on 28.02.2009, the Petitioner was brought over to
the work charged establishment and pursuant to order dated
06.01.2010 under Annexure-8, the service of the Petitioner was
regularized in the post of Junior Clerk in the work charged
establishment. Finally, the petitioner was regularized against a
sanctioned vacancy in the post of Junior Assistant on 23.08.2021
under Annexure-9. Finally, the Petitioner, on attaining the age of
superannuation, has retired from service w.e.f. 30.05.2023.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
contended that the grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ
application is that while calculating the pension and pensionary
benefits as is due and admissible to the petitioner, the Opposite
Parties have not taken into consideration the period of service
rendered by the Petitioner as an NMR employee. In the aforesaid
context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the
judgment of this Court in Laxmi Kanta Patro vs. State of Odisha
& Ors. in W.P.(C) No.4162 of 2024 disposed of on 28.02.2024.
He also referred to the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in S.D. Jayaprakash & Ors. Etc. vs. The Union of India
& Ors. in SLP (C) Nos.19539-19540 of 2021 which was
disposed of on 29.04.2025. In the aforesaid judgement, while
interpreting the Rule-17 of the Central Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1972, the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking into
consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of H.P. vs. Sheela Devi, reported in 2023 SCC Online SC
1272, has interpreted Rule 17 to include the contractual service
period rendered prior to the appellants' regularization in service.
It has been held that such period is to be counted towards the
payment of their pensionary benefits in accordance with the
mechanism set out in Rule 17 of the Central Civil Service
(Pension) Rules, 1972. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this
juncture contended that Rule 17 of the Central Civil Service
(Pension) Rules, 1972 is a pari materia to the provision
contained in the Odisha Pension Rules. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of counting of his service as
NMR for the purpose of calculation of his pension and
pensionary benefits.
8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that although he has no specific instruction in the matter.
However, on a perusal of the writ application it appears that the
Petitioner has not approached the Opposite Parties before
approaching this Court by filing the present writ application. He
further submitted that taking into consideration the nature of the
dispute involved in the present writ application, the same can
very well be resolved by the Opposite Parties in the event the
Petitioner is directed to approach such Opposite Party along with
copies of the judgments the Petitioner has relied upon in the
present case. He further submitted that in the event this Court
directs the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner
in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time, he
will have no objection to the same.
9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the factual
background as well as materials on record, further keeping in
view the nature of the dispute involved in the present writ
application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ
application at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the
Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.4 by filing a
detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with
copies of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner along with
a certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from
today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.4 shall do well
to consider the representation of the Petitioner in the light of the
law laid down by this court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by
passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eight
weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of
today's order. The final decision so taken be communicated to
the Petitioner within a period of ten days from the date of taking
such a decision.
10. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 22-Jul-2025 14:59:50
