Orissa High Court
Ch.Gouriprabha Patnaik vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 24 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.8081 of 2025
Ch.gouriprabha Patnaik ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Sidheswar Mallik
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Engr In Chief, Elect. Cum Represented By Adv. -
Principal Chief Elect Inspector, Bbsr Ms.Babita Kumari
3) Addl. Chief Engr Cum Principal Sahoo, AGA
Elect. Inspector, Ganjam
4) Supdt. Engr Cum Dy. Elect
Inspector, Ganjam
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Order No. ORDER
24.03.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/ Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner, who is the widow of late Laxman
Patnaik retired work charge employee has filed the above
noted writ application with a prayer to direct the Opposite
Parties to regularize her late husband in service for a day
prior to his superannuation notionally and grant pension and
pensionary benefits under the old rule in the light of the
decision in the case of State of Odisha vrs. Pitambar Sahoo,
Page 1 of 7.
W.P.(C) No.24041 of 2017 (decided on 20.12.2017), which
has been affirmed in SLP(C) Diary No.30806 of 2018 and
Chandra Nandi vrs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C)
No.19950 of 2011(decided on 03.02.2021) and Premananda
Tripathy vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.27950 of 2019
(decided on 03.02.2021) and Narusu Pradhan, SLP
No.22498 of 2012, State of Orissa and others vrs. Jyostna
Rani Pattanaik and others, W.P.(C) No.1534 of 2008, State
of Orissa vrs. Pitambar Mohapatra, W.P.(C) No.13483 of
2012 and State of Orissa vrs. Radheshyam Mohanta,
W.P.(C) No.12377 of 2009, which has been affirmed in
SLP(C) No.36038 of 2020 as well as the benefits given to
similar persons and sanction family pension in her favour.
4. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the husband of the
Petitioner had initially joined as Khalasi or Work Charge
basis on 01.06.1981. He continued in the said post
continuously and thereafter, retired from service on
30.06.2012
. Therefore, it is construed clear that the
continuance of the Petitioner in work charge establishment
have been considered from 01.06.1981 for all purposes
including gratuity. The husband of the Petitioner died on
26.05.2018 leaving behind the Petitioner, two sons and one
daughter.
5. 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 a
establishment post from the time he completed five years of
continuous service in work charged establishment and the
period from that time 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
under Annexure-6 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.
6. 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 pensionary benefits as prayed for in
that case.
7. Similarly, learned counsel for the Petitioner has also
cited another order of a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Chandra Nandi vrs. State 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.
8. 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 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.
9. The only benefit the petitioner is directs to get his
pensionary benefits payable to her husband and family
pension in her favour 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 her husband 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.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
present writ petition is allowed and the Opposite Parties are
directed to grant similar benefits to the Petitioner as has been
done in the case of Narusu Pradhan vide order dated 11th
June, 2009 passed in O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006 and Order
dated 03.02.2021 Ramesh Ch. Sahu vs. State WP(C)
No.17048 of 2013 disposed of on 03.02.2021. The Petitioner
is directed to submit representation appear before the
Opposite Party No.1 & 2 along with certified copy of this
order and all other relevant documents and records for
processing of her claim. The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 upon
receipt of certified copy of this order shall consider the case
of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid observation and
in the event they come to a conclusion that the petitioner is
entitled to such benefit then they shall calculate and pay the
benefits payable to the Petitioner, particularly his pensionary
benefits, within a period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
11. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is
allowed. There shall no order as to cost.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
RKS
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 26-Mar-2025 17:34:22
