Bikram Parida vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 339 Ori

Orissa High Court

Bikram Parida vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 8 May, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               WP(C) No.28703 of 2024

            Bikram Parida                               .....                 Petitioner
                                                                Represented By Adv. -
                                                                Mr. Swapna Kumar Ojha

                                             -versus-
            State of Odisha and others                  .....         Opposite Parties
                                                                Represented By Adv. -
                                                                Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC

                                                                M/s P.K Nayak, H.B Das,
                                                                A.C.R. Dash. K.K Jena,
                                                                G. Mohapatra

                                                                (For O.P. No.3)

                                 CORAM:
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

                                             ORDER

08.05.2025 Order No. W.P.(C) No.28703 of 2024 & I.A. No.7235 of 2025

03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

Under the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing that the NMR/Work charged period of petitioner shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of extending minimum

pension and other benefits and further direction shall not be issued to extend the benefits as has been extended in case of Narusu Pradhan and Kalicharan Mishra.

If the Opp. Parties failed show cause or show insufficient cause, rule may be made absolute;

And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper;

And to allow this Writ Petition."

4. At the outset, it is submitted by Mr. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Petitioner was initially appointed as NMR basis w.e.f. 13.11.1992 in Paradeep NAC as Homeopathy Assistant and continued as such till November, 2013. After serving as NMR for twenty one years uninterruptedly with unblemished career, he was brought over to the work-charged establishment as Homeopathy Assistant w.e.f. 21.08.2013 vide Office Order dated 07.11.2013 under Annexue-5 to the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that while the Petitioner was working as work-charged establishment, the service of the Petitioner was regularized as Homeopathy Assistant w.e.f. 06.03.2019 vide Office Order No.20531/H&U.D., BBSR dated 31.12.2020 issued by the Director, Municipal Administration, H&UD Department to the Executive Officer, Paradeep Municipality and Office Order dated 01.01.2021 of the Executive Officer, Paradeep Municipality and, accordingly, the Petitioner was given appointment against the regular post for a fixed scale of pay. Copy of the regularization has been annexed as Annexure-6 series to the writ application. Thereafter the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation

w.e.f. 30.06.2022.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that at the time of retirement, the petitioner was a regular employee under the Government and he was appointed a fixed scale of pay, however, the authorities have not paid pensionary and retiral dues to the Petitioner as is due and admissible as of now.

7. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the Petitioner has been worked under the Government for almost twenty one years uninterruptedly and in the meantime, service of the petitioner has been regularized bringing him to regular establishment vide Office Order No.HUD- MUN-OP-55/2008/20531/H&U.D., BBSR dated 31.12.2020 under Annexure-6 series. The authorities should have considered the service rendered by the Petitioner and should have calculated for the Petitioner's pensionary benefits. In such context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S)-1 as well as order of this Court in the case of Jogesh Kumar Mohanty vrs. State of Odisha and others, which was decided in W.P.(C) No.12736 of 2021 dated 29.11.2022. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that while calculating the final pension of the Petitioner, the authorities should have extended the pensionary benefits to the Petitioner by taking into consideration the past service of the Petitioner rendered as NMR employee also in the work-charged establishment. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that although the Petitioner has made several

representations before the authority lastly on 30.09.2024 to the Opposite Party No.2 for sanction of his pension, however the same is pending as of now.

8. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that taking into consideration service period of the Petitioner, the Petitioner has already been granted retirement gratuity, unutilized leave salary etc. as is due and admissible. So far as the pensionary benefits is concerned, he further contended that since the Petitioner is not eligible for such pensionary benefits as he has not completed the qualifying period of service for getting the pensionary benefits for regular establishment, he is not entitled for pensionary benefits. Accordingly, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State submits that the writ application is devoid of merit and the same should be rejected at the threshold.

9. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on careful consideration on the submissions made by the respective counsels and on a careful examination of the background facts of the case, this Court found that the Petitioner, who had initially joined as NMR casual worker in the year 1992 subsequently brought over to the regular establishment and was regularized for the post of Homeopathy Assistant raised by virtue of order dated 31.12.2020 under Annexure-6 series. Therefore, by the time, the Petitioner has retired from service at that time he was working as regular sanctioned post. Accordingly, the authorities have granted retiral dues except pensionary benefits. So far as the pensionary benefits are concerned, this Court considered the said aspect in several judgments rendered by this Court by taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem

Singh's case (supra) and in the case of Sk. Abdul Mutalib vrs. State Odisha and another (W.P.(C) No.32200 of 2022 decided on 04.01.2023). Keeping in view the legal position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner by keeping in view the judgments referred hereinabove and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 30.09.224 under Annexure-8 to the writ petition within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order.

10. It is further directed that in the event the Opposite Party No.2 comes to a conclusion that the case of the Petitioner is governed by ratio decided by this Court in the above noted judgment and orders and if there is no other legal impediment, then the pensionary benefits as is due and admissible be sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner from the date of taking consideration.

11. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition as well as I.A. stand disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

Debasis