Orissa High Court
Budhuram Singh vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 27 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.30596 of 2024
Budhuram Singh ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Prafulla Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA
Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing
Counsel for A.G.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
27.03.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid 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:
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:-
(i). Direct the opp. parties to sanction pension and
pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner on the
basis of his initial date of appointment 08.05.1990
as DLR along with regular service as qualifying
service for computing the minimum pensionary
benefits in view of the settled principles of law
decided by the Punjab and Haryana High court in
Harbans Lal V. The State of Punjab and others
(CWP No. 2371 of 2010, decided on 31.8.2010)
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 30.7.2012(State of Punjab
and others vrs. Harbans Lal) and also in the case of
Jeewan Lata v. State of Punjab and others, CWP
No. 10238 of 2017 (O&M) decided on 10.5.2019
and judgment dt. 26.8.2020 of the Apex court in
Civil Appeal No. 3984 of 2010; V. Sukumaran vrs.
State of Kerala and others and Amarkant Rai vrs.
State of Bihar & others reported in (2015) 5 SC 265
and grant pension and all consequential benefits;
(ii). Pass such other order (s)/direction(s) as would
be deem fit and proper in the bonafied interest of
justice;"
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner was initially appointed on 08.05.1990 in the post of Cook-
cum-Attendant by the District Welfare Officer, Mayurbhanj on
temporary 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 15.03.2023, 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 15.03.2023 the service of the
Petitioner was regularized as per the decision of the Government in
the post of Attendant (Group-D). Finally, the Petitioner was retired
from service on 31.08.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation
from the post of Attendant. 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 so much
period of service rendered in temporary status and DLR
establishment, 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.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
S.K. Rout
Reason: Authentication Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 28-Mar-2025 18:35:11
