Orissa High Court
Subhransu Sekhar Mohanty vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 7 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.17916 of 2025
Subhransu Sekhar Mohanty ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. K.P. Mishra, Senior
Advocate along with Mr.
Adyasidhi Mishra
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.07.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Petitioner as well as Mr. S.K. Parhi, 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 Petitioner with
the following prayers:-
"Under the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case , it is therefore, prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased
to :
(i) quash the impugned Order, dated 18.03.2025
passed by the Opp. Party No.l by concurrently
holding the same as bad, illegal and not
sustainable in the eye of law;
(ii) hold and declare that the Petitioner was
appointed under Rules, 1972, framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution of India as a Govt.
servant and thereby he is entitled to get G.P.F.
Account Number and Pension under O.C.S.
(Pension) Rules, 1992;
(iii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s)
as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide
interest of justice."
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at the
outset, contended that the Petitioner initially entered into the
Government service on 30.06.2000, which is evident from the
photocopy of the Service Book which has been filed as Annexure-2
to the writ petition. In such view of the matter, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that there is no
dispute with regard to the entry into the Government service. He
further contended that the grievance of the Petitioner in the present
writ petition is that although the Petitioner is covered under the
O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992 prior to the amendment of the year
2025, however the Opposite Party No.1 rejected his claim vide order
dated 18.03.2025 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition. Being
aggrieved by such rejection of his prayer, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. In course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of this
Court in Dambarudhar Mohanta v. State of Odisha and others
decided in W.P.(C) No.4045 of 2025 on 16.05.2025, contended that
in an identical matter, this Court had delivered the detailed judgment
taking note of the factual background as well as the initial date of
entry of the Petitioner in that case. By virtue of the aforesaid
judgment, this Court has held that the Petitioner in the said writ
petition has been covered by the O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992 and
G.P.F. (Orissa) Rules, 1938 prior to the amendment in the year 2005.
In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner further
contended that although the judgment in the identical case was
delivered by this Court on 16.05.2025, however, the Opposite Party
No.1 rejected the prayer of the Petitioner on 18.03.2025, i.e. prior to
the judgment was delivered in the case of person who stands in a
similar footing with the Petitioner. Accordingly, it was contended
that the ratio laid down in Dambarudhar Mohanta's case (supra) has
not been considered while passing the rejection order dated
18.03.2025 under Annexure-13 to the writ petition. In such view of
the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
impugned order is unsustainable in law and, accordingly, the same
should be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended
that the Petitioner had earlier approached the departmental authorities
pursuant to an order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4121 of
2025. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1 reconsidered the case of
the Petitioner and by virtue of a speaking order dated 18.03.2025, the
prayer of the Petitioner has been rejected. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the State contended that the Opposite Party No.1
has not committed any illegality in rejecting the claim of the
Petitioner by passing the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 to the
writ petition. Accordingly, it was prayed that the present writ
petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be
dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties and on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the
writ petition, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned rejection
order dated 18.03.2025, this Court observes that the said order was
passed much prior to the judgment delivered by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.4045 of 2025 (Dambarudhar Mohanta v. State of Odisha and
others). On further examination, it appears that the case of the
Petitioner is similar to the case of Dambarudhar Mohanta's case
(supra). Accordingly, the impugned rejection order dated 18.03.2025
under Annexure-13 to the writ petition is hereby set aside. The
matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to reconsider the
case of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down by this Court
in Dambarudhar Mohanta's case (supra). Accordingly, the
Petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.1 along with
a copy of this order within two weeks from today. In such
eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to redress the
grievance of the Petitioner in light of the aforesaid direction within a
period of two months from the date the Petitioner approaches before
him. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner
within ten days thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
