Orissa High Court
Prahalad Chandra Naik vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 3 May, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.11762 of 2025
Prahalad Chandra Naik ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Prafulla Kumar
Mohapatra
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Smt. Sasmita Nayak,
ASC
Mr. S.K. Patra, Standing
Counsel for the A.G.,
Odisha.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
03.05.2025
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 Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned
Standing Counsel for AG. 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 grant/sanction pension and
pensionary benefits on the basis of his long period of service
on regular basis in the post of Helper from 24.01.1994 till
retirement i.e. 30.08.2023 after fixation of pay by granting
annual increments from 01.01.2021 and usual D.A. and
House Rent Allowance 10% as well as RACP as due and
admissible to him within a stipulated period as may be fixed
by this Hon'ble court;
(ii). Pass such other order (s)/direction(s) as would be deem
fit and proper in the bona fied interest of justice;"
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner was initially appointed on 19.02.1992 in the post of Helper
by the Director of Printing, Stationery and Publication, Odisha on
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 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 07.10.1993, the Petitioner called
upon for regular post of Helper. Finally, the Petitioner submitted a
representation before the Opposite parties for regularization of his
service. Finally on 24.01.1994 the service of the Petitioner was
regularized as per the decision of the Government in the post of
Helper (Group-D) and GPF A/c. No.SEO9449 was opened. Finally,
the Petitioner was retired from service on 31.08.2023 on attaining the
age of superannuation from the post of Helper. 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 both as DLR as well as the service
rendered in the regular establishment. 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 and thereby fix his pay by granting
annual increments from 01.01.2021, usual D.A., H.R. and RACP as
due and admissible.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel 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 Standing Counsel submitted that the amount
as is due and 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 called upon to appear the
interview for regular appointment 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
regular service and DLR establishment for calculation of 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 for calculation of the minimum
qualifying service period of the Petitioner taking the shortfall period
from the service period of the Petitioner as DLR and to calculate the
minimum qualifying service period and in the event it is found that
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 is getting any other pensionary benefit, the same
shall be surrendered before the Government. Any decision taken be
communicated to the Petitioner within 10 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
Debasis
