Orissa High Court
Kalpana Maharana vs State Of Odisha And Others on 1 May, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.342 of 2025
Kalpana Maharana .... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. Judhisthir Sahoo, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Bimbisar Dash
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and Judgment: 1st May, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. Though the authorities did not take any conscious decision
on an application taken out by the appellant claiming a benefit
under the Odisha Building and Other Construction Workers
(Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2002
but in course of the hearing of the writ petition being W.P.(C)
No.17178 of 2024 filed by the appellant alleging inaction on the
part of the authority in taking the decision, it was brought to the
notice of the Court that the husband of the appellant did not pay
the contributory amount as mandated under the aforesaid rules and,
therefore, ceased to be the member/beneficiary under the said
scheme.
2. The learned single Judge proceeded to dismiss the said
writ petition taking into account the relevant provisions of the said
rules and held that the appellant is not entitled to get the benefits
under the aforesaid rules as the husband did not pay the
contributory amount for three consecutive years which invited the
cessation of the membership as beneficiary under the aforesaid
rules.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant is very much vocal in his
submission that the cessation of a membership under the aforesaid
rules is not automatic; even the beneficiary has not paid the
contributory amount, the authority is required to intimate the
beneficiary before initiating a proceeding for such cessation. He
further submits that the said Rule further provides that in the event
the beneficiary deposited his annual contribution, his membership
would be registered afresh which means that the cessation is not
automatic but dependent upon a conscious decision taken by an
authority.
4. To appreciate the contention of the counsel for the
appellant, it would be relevant to quote the provisions contained in
Rule 267 of the said rules amended in terms of a notification dated
30th May, 2019.
"(1) Every registered beneficiary shall contribute
to the Fund at the rate of Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty) per
annum to be remitted to the Board through the
Registering Officer entrusted with registration of
beneficiaries. This contribution may be remitted in
advance once during any time of the year to the
Registering Officer appointed by the Board
through due acknowledgement/ money receipt/
Bank Receipt. For the above purpose, "year"
means financial year as defined u/r. 248(g).
(3) If a beneficiary commits default in the payment
of contribution continuously for a period of three
years, he shall cease to be a beneficiary of the
fund. However, with the permission of the
Secretary of the Board or any Officer authorized by
him in this behalf, the membership may be resumed
on payment of arrears of contribution on due
satisfaction of the Secretary or authorized officer
subject to the condition that such resumption shall
not be allowed more than twice.
Provided that if a registered beneficiary is
willing to deposit his annual contribution after
cessation of membership, he may be registered
afresh as a new beneficiary under the Board with
due procedure as in case of new registration. But,
he should not avail the entitled benefit or
assistance which he has already availed during his
previous registration."
5. On a meaningful reading of the aforesaid provision, it is
manifest that the benevolent scheme in the form of a Rule framed
by the Government requires a reciprocal obligation on the part of
the beneficiary to make a contribution to the fund at the rate of
Rs.50 per annum. It further provides that in the event the
beneficiary commits default in payment of a contribution for three
consecutive years, he shall cease to be the beneficiary of the said
fund.
6. The said provision does not warrant any communication or
initiation of a proceeding for cessation of the membership. We are
not unmindful of the proposition that the beneficial piece of
legislation has to be interpreted in a pragmatic manner keeping in
mind the object and purpose underlying the incorporation thereof.
The beneficial piece of legislation has to be interpreted which
would enure to the benefit of the beneficiaries thereunder and any
pedantic view which offends the core intention should be
eschewed.
7. The moment the welfare legislation has created an
obligation on the beneficiary to make contribution to the fund of an
amount specified therein together with the provision that in the
event of a default in payment of such contribution the benefits or
the membership shall cease, the conclusion in this regard is
inescapable that in the event of a default, the membership ceases
automatically. Any other interpretation to the expression "he shall
cease to be the beneficiary of the fund" appearing in sub-rule 3 of
Rule 267 would be opposed to the legislative intent and, therefore,
the interpretation sought to be made by the appellant is
unacceptable.
8. The shelter under the proviso appended to the said
provision is misplaced for the reason that though the cessation may
occur automatically on default in making payment of the
contribution for three consecutive years yet, upon the deposit of
the contribution, the said beneficiary may be registered afresh as a
new beneficiary. It does not invite a situation where upon the
payment of the defaulted amount of contribution, it would resurrect
the membership.
9. However, the revival of the membership may be
permissible as appearing in sub-rule 3 of Rule 267 of the said rules
where the beneficiary may make the payment of the arrears of the
contribution upon taking a permission of the Secretary of the
Board who upon recording the due satisfaction in relation to the
circumstances which attributed to the default by the beneficiary in
making contribution but such benefit can only be given twice
during the lifespan of the said membership and not beyond that.
10. Admittedly, the beneficiary during his lifetime did not
make the payment of the arrears and remained in default; therefore,
the cessation of the membership being automatic on default in
payment of his contribution for three consecutive years, the
appellant cannot avail the benefit arising from the said benevolent
piece of legislation.
11. We thus do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order
of the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by
the appellant.
12. After the dictation of the judgment in the open Court,
learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court must also
take into account the violation of the principle of natural justice
i.e., at the time of cessation of the membership, an opportunity of
hearing must have been afforded to the beneficiary under the said
scheme. A plea of non-adherence of the legal maxim, audi alteram
partem cannot be taken in an abstract manner nor shall be applied
in isolation but must be taken into consideration in the context in
which it is used. The provision which has a statutory flavour
clearly postulates that on default in payment of a contribution for
three consecutive years, the membership shall cease without
containing any provision of initiation of the proceeding either by
making any demand or by serving any notice, the principle of
natural justice is not attracted in this regard. The moment the
statutory provision invites an automatic cessation, the Court should
not substitute or add some words into the statutory provision nor
should supplement its view which would run counter to the
legislative mandate.
13. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the aforesaid
submission. The appeal sans merit. It is hereby dismissed.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S. Behera
A. Nanda
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 02-May-2025 18:20:54
