Birabar Nag vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2025 Latest Caselaw 831 Ori

Orissa High Court

Birabar Nag vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 3 July, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                    WP(C) No.17277 of 2025

             Birabar Nag                              .....                   Petitioner
                                                                  Represented By Adv. -
                                                                  Prafulla Kumar
                                                                  Mohapatra


                                               -versus-

             1) State Of Odisha                           .....        Opposite Parties
             2) Engineer-in-chief, Water Resources                Represented By Adv. -
             Dept.,odisha                                         Mr.U.R.Jena, AGA
             3) Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation,
             Bbsr
             4) Addl. Chief Engineer, Central
             Minor Irrigation Circle, Bbsr
             5) Supdt. Engineer, Minor Irrigation
             Div.,angul
             6) Secy. To Govt. Of Odisha, Finance
             Dept.,bbsr
             7) Accountant General (a And E) ,
             Odisha



                                   CORAM:
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                 MOHAPATRA

                                              ORDER

03.07.2025

Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.

3. The Petitioner has filed the above noted writ application with a prayer to direct the opp. parties to regularise him in service with retrospective effect after completion of five years of service under work charged establishment, i.e., from the year 2012 in terms of Govt. decision vide Finance deptt. Resolution dt. 22.1.1965 and dt. 15.05.1997 as well as the principles decided in the case of Sarbeswar Bhujabal V.State of Orissa & others, O.A. No. 606/2015, which has been affirmed in W.P.(C) No. 7680/2019 and Special Leave to Appeal No.7541/2020 and Narusu Pradhan v. State of Odisha & others, O.A. No. 1189(c) of 2006, which has been affirmed in W.P.(C) No.5377/2010 and Special Leave to Appeal (civil) CC No. SLP No. 22498/2012 and in view of the judgment passed by the apex Court in Secretary State of Kamataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in State of Kamataka and others vrs. M.L.Kesari and others involving SLP(C) No. 15774/2006 and in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2024 SCC Online Se 3826, in Sripal and Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Gaziabad (decided on 31st January, 2025) in Civil Appeal No.8158-8179 of 2024;

ii). Pass such other order (s)/direction(s) as would be deem fit and proper in the bonafide interest of Justice.

4. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the Petitioner had initially joined as DLR basis during 1981. He continued in the said post continuously and thereafter, he was brought over to work charged establishment as Khalasi vide order dated 04.09.2017 and as yet he has not been considered for regular establishment and now he is at the last part of the service and

in the meantime juniors already regularised. It is pertinent to mention here that other similar persons viz-Sri Pitambar Sahoo, Mate retired from service on 31.01.2012, Narusu Pradhan, Electrician, retired from service during 1998, retired from service on 30.09.2008 Pitambar Mohapatra, Chowkidar retired have been sanctioned pension on the basis of the service rendered as DLR under work charge establishment. Therefore, it is construed clear that the continuance of the Petitioner in NMR and work charged establishment have been considered from 1981 for all purposes including gratuity.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.2 should have kept in mind the Finance Department Resolution and the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the representation of the Petitioner and also taken into consideration the length of service rendered by the Petitioner in the establishment being a work charged employee and continuous service and short period of service for retirement on superannuation.

6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.70(B) of 1997 by order dated 03.05.1999 analyzing various points of law directed the State Government to regularize in an establishment post from the time he completed five years of continuous service in work charged establishment and the period of service rendered by him till the date of retirement be counted towards the pension and direction was issued to grant pensionary benefit to the employees. He further submits that the Government challenging the order of the learned

Tribunal approached this Court in filing OJC No.13552 of 1999 and this Court by order dated 01.05.2001 referring the judgment rendered in OJC No.1162 of 1999 (State of Orissa- vrs.-Jhuma Parida and others) and OJC 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. After dismissal of the writ application, the Government has brought the employee into regular establishment for the purpose of granting pensionary benefit. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated employees have been extended such benefits by virtue of the order passed by this Court and such order passed by this Court has been ultimately upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

7. The Opposite Party No.2 has although not filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations made by the Petitioner in the Petition. It is stated by the learned Additional Government Advocate in the counter of similar cases that the claim of the Petitioner is a stale claim. Further it is stated in the counter affidavit that the cases cited by the Petitioner are different from the grievance of the Petitioner and the principle decided in the said case are not all applicable to the case of the present Petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the Opposite Party No.2 has given due care and caution towards implementation of orders passed by this Court as well as the Apex Court and the guidelines and circulars issued by the State Government from time to time.

8. Heard learned counsel for both sides. Perused the materials available on record. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Abhaya Chanrana Mohanty vrs. State of Odisha, WPC(OAC) No.3494 of 2013 disposed of on 14th July, 2021. In the said case, the Petitioner, who was a work charged employee had claimed the pensionary benefits after his retirement with retrospective effect. This Court relying upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.21498 of 2012 thereby dismissing the State Government's Appeal and confirming the order dated 19th December 2011 of this Court passed in W.P(C) No.5377 of 2010 in the case of one Narusu Pradhan vis. State of Odisha allowed the writ petition and granted pensionary benefits as prayed for in that case.

9. Similarly, learned counsel for the Petitioner has also cited another order of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sarbeswar Bhujabal V. State of Orissa & others, O.A. No. 606/2015, affirmed in SLP(C) No.7541 of 2020 and Chandra Nandi vrs. Sate of Odisha and others: reported in 2014(I) OLR 734. In the said reported case, this Court had given a direction to notionally regularize service of the Petitioner prior to his superannuation from service and accordingly, calculated the Petitioner's entitlement including the pensionary benefits.

10. So far the case of one Narusu Pradhan is concerned and which has been referred to by this Court in Abhaya Charan Mohanty (supra), said Narusu Pradhan had filed

O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006 praying for retiral benefits. Learned Tribunal allowed the retiral pensionary benefits in his favour vide order dated 11th June, 2009. The order dated 19th June, 2009 was challenged by the State Government before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 19th December, 2021 and confirmed the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the State Government preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India bearing Civil Appeal No.22498 of 2012. The said appeal was also dismissed on 7th January, 2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India thereby confirming the orders passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal as well as this Court. Since the case of Narusu Pradhan is a case of work charged employee, who had worked for more than five years in work charged establishment had been allowed to receive pensionary benefits by virtue of order passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, which was ultimately confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of ultimately India, the principle laid down in that case has become a Law of the land as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and is binding on this court while deciding cases of similar nature. Therefore, it is no more open to the State Government to take stand contrary to the principle finally approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

11. The only benefit the petitioner is directs to get his pensionary benefits payable to the Petitioner i.e. required to be considered in the present writ petition. Since the benefits have been granted to other similarly placed work charged

employees by notionally considering them as regular establishment employee and as such the pensionary benefits have been given to them, the same benefit needs to be extended to the Petitioner for services rendered by him under the State Government for several decades continuously that too on payment of a paltry amount every month. The whole objective of the pension scheme is to support an employee and his family after retirement which is in recognition of his relentless service to the Govt. and such benefits are provided under the Rules on humanitarian considerations.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court taking into consideration the grievance of the present petitioner, deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization of his service as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months, by taking into consideration the judgments referred to hereinabove. In the event it is found that the Petitioner is entitled to regularization in service, then necessary consequential action be taken by the Opposite Parties to regularize the Petitioner against any vacant sanctioned posts within a further period of six weeks. It is needless to mention here that in the event the Petitioner is regularized, then all consequential financial and pensionary benefits, as is due and admissible to him, be calculated and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner thereafter in accordance with law. Any final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such

decision.

13. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

RKS

Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary