Orissa High Court
Tikina Jena vs State Of Orissa & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 1 May, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.26139 of 2024
Tikina Jena ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Dillip Kumar Mohapatra
-versus-
State of Orissa & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Samresh Jena, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
01.05.2025
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite
Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed
thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
with the following prayers:-
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:-
i) Admit the writ application;
ii) Call for the records;
iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Opp. Parties
to sanction and release the pension and
pensionary benefits of the petitioner in terms of
judgment law pronounced by the Hon'ble Court in
OA No.1189(C) of 2006 disposed of on
11:06.2009 (Narasu Pradhan Versus State)
confirmed by the Hon'bler Court in W.P. C
No.5377 of 2010 disposed of on 19.12.2011 and
Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Civil Appeal
No.21498 of 2012, W.P. C (OAC)No.864 of 2018
(Bandhu Gochhayat Versas State) W.P.C (OAC)
No 4660 of 2016 (Rabinarayan Mohanty Versus
State of Orissa within the reasonable time to be
stipulated by this Hon'ble Court
iv) And/or pass such other order orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may
think fit and proper for the ends of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the present
Petitioner was initially engaged on DLR basis w.e.f. 2.3.1993.
While working as such, the present Petitioner was brought over to
work charged establishment on 3.11.2011 vide Office Order
No.3171/WE dated 3.11.2011 of the Executive Engineer, M.I.
Division, Dhenkanal. Thereafter, the Petitioner was superannuated
from 31.12.2022 on attaining the age of 60 years and the total
service rendered by him comes to 27 years. Now the Petitioner has
approached this Court challenging the inaction of the authorities
in not granting pension by computing the total period of service
rendered in DLR and work charged establishment.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand,
contended that the Petitioner is not entitled for pension as he has
not completed 10 years of minimum qualifying service as required
under Rule.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the background
facts of the present case, as well as the materials on record, this
Court observes that the only question that is required to be
adjudicated in the present writ petition is with regard to
entitlement of the Petitioner to get pensionary benefits on the basis
of total period of service under work charged estt. In the event this
Court comes to a conclusion that the Petitioner is entitled to the
pensionary benefit, the Petitioner will be eligible to get the
pension. The aforesaid issue, as it appears, is no more res integra.
The same has been adjudicated by this Court repeatedly on a
number of occasions. Apart from the judgment in Sarbeswar
Bhujabal's case (supra), similar issue was decided in Khageswar
Jena v. State of Odisha and Ors. (W.P.(C) No.29993 of 2022
disposed of on 18.11.2022) and such order passed by this Court
has already been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in
writ appeal bearing W.A. No.301 of 2023 vide order dated
06.11.2023. Similar view has also been taken in many similar
matters like in Sri Narsingh Choudhury v. State of Odisha and
others (W.P.(C) No.31366 of 2023, in Pradip Kumar Sahu v.
State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.28909 of 2023). All the
aforesaid employees belong to the very same department except
Narsingh Choudhury.
7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court directs the
Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of regularisation of
service of the Petitioner in regular establishment for grant of
pensionary benefits by taking into consideration so much of the
service period of the Petitioner so as to calculate the minimum
qualifying service period for grant of pensionary benefits from
work charged period of the Petitioner. Accordingly, minimum
pensionary benefits be calculated as is due and admissible to the
present Petitioner on the basis of the last pay drawn by him.
Further, it is directed that in the event similarly situated
employees, one of whom being Sarbeswar Bhujabal and Narusu
Pradhan, Sarbeswar Swain have been given such pensionary
benefits, then the case of the Petitioner also be considered and the
Petitioner shall be paid the minimum pension as is due and
admissible to him within a period of two months from the date of
communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 02-May-2025 10:46:09
