Orissa High Court
Sribatsa Biswal vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 1 May, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.11800 of 2025
Sribatsa Biswal ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Atul Tripathy
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. J.K. Bal, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
01.05.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-
Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents
annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the
following prayers:-
"On the facts and in the circumstances stated
above, your petitioner most humbly prays that this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the opp. parties;
i) hold and declare that petitioner is entitled to
pension as per OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 as his
appointment was w.e.f 01.01.1986 as evident from
Annexure-1 and thereby;
ii) direct the opp. parties to calculate the
pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits of the
petitioner under Old pension Rules of 1992 and by
taking into account his entire period of service in NMR,
Work Charged and Regular(Wages) establishment as
qualifying service for the purpose of pension and retiral
benefits in terms of benefits extended to Sarbeswar
Bhujabal in Annexure-4, in terms of Finance Dept.
Resolution & O.M. in Annexutre-5 and 6 Series read
with the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case
of Rabindra Kumar Jena vs. State of Odisha read with
law settled by the Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2019) 10 SCC
516, State of Gujrat & Ors. vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai
Patel (SLP (C) No. 1109 of 2022- disposed of on
18.2.2022) and Uday Prasad Thakur vs. State of Bihar,
reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 371 as reiterated by the
most recent decision in State of Odisha & Ors v.
Sudhansu Sekhar Jena & Batch reported in 2025 INSC
259 and release the same to the petitioner forthwith;
iii) pass such other order (s) as deemed fit and
proper in the bona fide interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that
initially the Petitioner was engaged as NMR Khalasi under Bolangir
Irrigation Circle w.e.f. 01.01.1986. While working as such, he was
brought over to the Work Charged Establishment on 01.03.2009 and
consequently he joined in the Work Charged Establishment on
01.09.2009. While working in the Work Charged Establishment, the
Petitioner was brought over to the Regular (Wages) establishment
against existing vacancy vide order dated 22.03.2023 and subsequently
he joined against that sanctioned vacancy on 01.04.2023. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that while working in the
regular establishment, the Petitioner on attaining the age of
superannuation has retired from service w.e.f. 30.04.2025.
5. The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is
that although the Petitioner has been brought over to the regular
establishment, however while calculating the retiral as well as
pensionary benefits, the period of service which he has rendered in the
NMR as well as in the Work Charged Establishment has not been
taken into consideration.
6. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2019) 10 SCC
516; State of Gujrat & Ors. vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (SLP (C)
No. 1109 of 2022, decided on 18.2.2022); Uday Prasad Thakur vs.
State of Bihar, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 371; and State of
Odisha & Ors. v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena and batch of similar
matters, reported in 2025 INSC 259, as well as the order of this Court
in Rabindra Kumar Jena v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C)
No.36009 of 2021 decided on 07.12.2022) to the extent that the entire
period of service in Work Charged Establishment is to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of calculation of pensionary as well
retiral benefits. He further submitted that once the Petitioner's service
was regularized and he was brought over to the regular establishment,
then his period of service shall be considered from the date of his
initial joining and, accordingly, the entire period of service shall be
taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of retiral and
pensionary benefits. He further submitted that although the Petitioner
has approached the Opposite Parties on several occasions claiming to
consider the entire period of service for the purpose of calculation of
retiral dues as well as pensionary benefits, however no action has been
taken as of now. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite
Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present
writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that
although he has no instruction in the matter, however on perusal of the
writ petition, it appears that the Petitioner before approaching this
Court by filing the present writ petition has not approached the
Opposite Parties for redressal of his grievance. In such view of the
matter, learned counsel for the State contended that in the event this
Court directs the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 for
redressal of his grievance in accordance with law and in terms of the
judgment of this Court as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a time bound manner, he will have no objection to
the same.
8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for both the sides and on a careful examination of the factual
background of the present case, further keeping in view the legal
position as has been enumerated in the judgments referred to
hereinabove, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition
at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to
approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation
taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents as
well as the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner within three weeks
from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well
to consider the case of the Petitioner by taking into consideration the
law laid down in the above noted judgments and dispose of the
representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned
order within three months from the date of communication of a
certified copy of this order. The final decision so taken be
communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
