Orissa High Court
K.Rama Reddy vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 3 March, 2025
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.5724 of 2025
K.rama Reddy ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prafulla Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Engineer-in-chief, Water Resources, Represented By Adv. -
Odisha Mr.Akshaya Pati,ASC
3) Chief Engineer And Basin
Manager,indrabati And Kolab Basin, Mr.S.K.Patra,Standing
Bariniput Counsel for
4) Addl. Chief Engineer, Upper Kolab A.G.Odisha
Project, Bariniput
5) Supdt. Engineer, Upper Kolab Head
Works Div.,kolabnagar
6) Secy. To Govt. Of Odisha, Finance
Dept.,bbsr
7) Accountant General (a And E) ,
Odisha
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 03.03.2025
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 Standing Counsel & Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Principal
Accountant General for AG, Odisha.
3. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to
Opposite Parties to give all benefit to him against the post of Truck
Driver (Work charged) Mate as per Orissa Government Service Rules
and regularize his service by calculating five years of continuous
service as work charged employee and give him all service benefits on
that basis including pensionary benefit immediately within a stipulated
period.
4. Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
similar benefit has been extended to one Narusu Pradhan. As such the
Petitioner having stood in similar footing, he is entitled to grant all the
benefits.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State contended
that the Petitioner has already retired from service and he was working
as Truck Driver. He further contended that the claim of the Petitioner
cannot sustain in the eye of law.
6. It is contended that one Narusu Pradhan, a similar circumstanced
person like the Petitioner had filed O.A.No.1189(C) of 2006 praying
for retiral benefits. The Tribunal allowed the retiral pensionary benefits
in his favour vide order dated 11.06.2009, which was challenged by the
State before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010. This Court
dismissed the writ petition on 19.12.2011 and confirmed the order
passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter against the order passed by this
Court, the State has preferred SLP in Civil Appeal No.22498 of 2012,
the same was also dismissed on 07.01.2013. Recently, similar issue has
been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.754 of
2020, vide order dated 30.10.2022; State of Odisha vrs. Sarbeswar
Bhujabal confirming the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.7380 of 2019 as well as the Tribunal in O.A. No.606 of 2015 vide
Annesxure-7.
7. In that view of the matter, the relief claimed by the Petitioner is
fully covered by the judgment of the Tribunal passed in the case of
Narusu Pradhan, which has been confirmed by this Court as well as the
apex Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
Petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a
fresh representation within two weeks. In the event such a
representation is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with
law. Further, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to examine whether
the Petitioner's case is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in
the case of Narusu Pradhan and Sarbeswar Bhujabal, which has been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the event, the authority
comes to the conclusion that the Petitioner is entitled to the relief as has
been claimed by him then the benefit extended in favour of Narusu
Pradhan and Sarbeswar Bhujabal be also extended in favour of the
Petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such a
decision.
8. Let the entire exercise be carried out within a period of three
months.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
RKS
Location: High Court of Orissa
