Orissa High Court
Ramesh Chandra Swain vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 26 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.8444 of 2025
Ramesh Chandra Swain ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prafulla Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Director Of Technical Education Represented By Adv. -
And Training, Odisha, Cuttack Mr. D.K.Sahoo, A.G.A.
3) Principal, Govemment Polytechnic,
Dhenkanal Mr. S.K.Patra, Standing
4) Accountant General (a And E) , Counsel for O.P. No.4
Bbsr,odisha
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
26.03.2025
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 Government Advocate for the State and Mr. S.K. Patra,
learned Standing Counsel for A.G. Odisha. Perused the Writ Petition
as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is
therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously
be pleased to:
(i) direct the 0pp. Parties to sanction pension and
pensionary benefits under Orissa Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1992 by counting so much of past service rendered
01.11.1988 under State Govt. along with regular service in
the light of the principles, decided by the Punjab and
others (CWP No.2371 of 2010, decided on 31.08.2010),
which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
SLP(C) No.23578 of 2012 (SLP(C) CC No. 17901 of
2011), disposed of on 30.07.2012( State of Punjab and
others Vs. Harbans Lai) and also in the case of Jeewan
Lata Vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.l0238 of
2017(0&M), decided on 10.05.2019 and Judgment,
dt.26.08.2020 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.3984 of 2010; V.Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala and
others and Amarkanta Rai Vs. State of Bihar (2015)5 SC
265 and the decision of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C)No.
15853 of 2012, 15856 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No.l471of
2013,disposed of vide Order, dated 24.04.2013,which has
been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)
No.35462 - 35464 of 2014;
(ii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be
deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner was initially appointed on 04.11.1988 in the post of Class-
IV by the Principal Govt. Polytechnic, Dhenkanal DLR basis.
Thereafter, the Petitioner continued to service uninterruptedly. When
the Petitioner was continuing, the Notification of the Finance
Department dated 15.05.1997 had come into force. Accordingly,
learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of such
Notification, the Petitioner should have been brought over to the
regular establishment. Thereafter his services should have been
regularized as has been provided in the Resolution dated 15.05.1997.
However, the same was not done by the authority by deviating the
Notification dated 15.05.1997. On 04.09.2012, he was conferred with
temporary status and then on 25.10.2024 the petitioner was brought
over to the regular establishment. Finally, the Petitioner submitted a
representation before the Opposite parties for regularization of his
service. Finally on 25.10.2024 the service of the Petitioner was
regularized as per the decision of the Government in the post of
Night-watchman (Group-D). Finally, the Petitioner was retired from
service on 31.12.2024 on attaining the age of superannuation from
the post of Night-watchman. In view of the aforesaid factual
background, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Opposite Party No.1 be directed to pay the pensionary benefit to the
Petitioner taking into consideration the past service rendered by the
Petitioner to make him eligible for pension as the service rendered by
him in the department for long period. Accordingly, the Petitioner
has approached this Court for a direction to the Opposite Parties to
pay the retirement benefit as well as the pensionary benefit as is due
and admissible to the Petitioner.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand,
contended that since the Petitioner does not have the qualifying
service period, he is not entitled to pensionary benefit. Accordingly,
the authorities have not considered the case of the Petitioner for grant
of pensionary benefit. However, with regard to payment of retiral
dues, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the
amount as is due ad admissible to the Petitioner has already been paid
to the Petitioner on his superannuation from service. Accordingly it
was submitted that the Writ Petition was devoid of merit and the
same be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful
examination of the background facts of the present case and keeping
in view the well settled position of law that once an employee who
was working initially as DLR, thereafter brought over to temporary
status and finally, his service was regularized shall be considered for
payment of pensionary benefit by taking into consideration as so
much period of service rendered in temporary status in DLR
establishment to calculate the minimum qualifying period of service
for grant of pensionary benefit. Such a proposition of law as has been
propounded by this Court has already been accepted by many
judgments of this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position,
this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing
the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner in the event
the Opposite Parties come to a conclusion that the case of the
Petitioner is covered under the judgments referred to hereinabove and
the Petitioner is entitled such benefits, then the Opposite Parties shall
do well to calculate the minimum qualifying service period of the
Petitioner taking the shortfall period from the service period of the
Petitioner as temporary status employee/DLR to calculate the
minimum qualifying service period, the benefit which is due and
admissible to the Petitioner on the basis of his last pay drawn
accordingly, the same be sanctioned and disbursed to the Petitioner
within a period of two months from the date of communication of the
certified copy of this order. In the event, the Petitioner though is
getting any other pensionary benefit, the same shall be surrendered
before the Government. Any decision taken be communicated to the
Petitioner within ten days of taking such decision.
7. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 02-Apr-2025 13:01:25
