Allowed

Namita Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC28 Oct 2021WPC(OAC)/2442/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa quashed an order denying pension benefits to a teacher appointed in 2012 for a post advertised in 1999. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to benefits under the old rules due to state delay in appointment, aligning with precedents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 25.05.2017 and 30.05.2017 are quashed and the petitioner's benefit is to be extended in accordance with law.

Namita Behera Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OAC) No. 2442 of 2017

¶2

Namita Behera

¶3

….. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

Vs.

¶6

….. State of Odisha and others Opposite party

¶7

Mr. H.K. Panigrahi ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶10

ORDER 28.10.2021

¶11

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

¶13

The petitioner files this writ application seeking for quashing of the order dated 25.05.2017 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj under Annexure-10 and also the communication made by the District Welfare Officer dated 30.05.2017 under Annexure-11.

¶14

Mr. B.B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner who was a trained graduate was a candidate in pursuance to the advertisement made by the Collector, Mayurbhanj on 21.03.1999 for filling up various categories of posts in different High Schools, Kanyashrams managed by the welfare department. The selection committee met on 07.01.2000 and finalized the selection. At the time of advertisement and selection the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and G.P.F. Rules were in vogue. The new pension rule was introduced in the year 2006 with effect from 01.01.2005. However the petitioner was not extended with the OCS

¶15

(Pension) Rules, 1992 as well as GPF Rules on the ground that the petitioner was issued with appointment order on 24.12.2012. The petitioner accordingly approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 284 (C) of 2017. The said Original Application was disposed of directing the opposite parties to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner. However, the Collector, Mayurbhanj vide order dated 25.05.2017 under Annexure-10 rejected the claim of the petitioner, which was communicated by the District Welfare Officer, Mayurbhanj on 30.05.2017 vide Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Mr. Mohanty further contended that the grievance of the petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Anand Dash and seven others vs. State of Orissa and others (W.P.(C) No. 15433 of 2012 disposed of on 24.04.2013), Shri Himansu Sekhar Dash and three others v. State of Orissa (W.P.(C) No. 15856 of 2012 disposed of on 24.04.2013) and Shri Padma Charan Das v. State of Orissa and others (W.P.(C) No. 1471 of 2013 disposed of on 24.04.2013), which has been annexed as Annexure-12 to the rejoinder affidavit. Similar matters have also been decided by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1536 of 2008 and 1537 of 2008, which were made confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9015 of 2014 and 5320 of 2014 decided on 22.11.2017 and also implemented vide Annexure-15. Thereby the petitioner’s claim has to be decided on the basis of the judgment of this Court and also the order of the Tribunal, which has been implemented by the authorities. 4. Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Additional Standing

¶16

Counsel for the State contended that the claim of the petitioner cannot be extended as has been stated in the writ application and it is stated that the petitioner was a selectee for the post of Trained Graduate (B.A. B.Ed) Teachers as against the advertisement made on 21.03.1999 for filling up of various categories of posts in different SSD High Schools, Ashram School, Kanya Shram managed by the Welfare Department including 02 posts for Trained Graduate (1-B.A. B.Ed and 1- B.Sc. B.Ed) and other teachers of Junior Grade posts. But due to commencement of ban order by Government in Finance Department, on austerity measure, appointment order was not issued to the applicant as High School Teachers are not exempted from the operation of ban. But the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the direction given by the Tribunal on 24.12.2012 and accordingly she joined her duty on 26.12.2012. Therefore, since the petitioner joined after commencement of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) Rule, 2006 was introduced by the State Government with effect from 01.01.2005, the petitioner’s service condition is regulated by such pension rules. Thereby the claim of the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court is of the opinion that admittedly the petitioner was a selectee for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher against the advertisement made on 21.03.1999, but due to latches on the part of the state authorities she has been issued with the appointment order

¶18

only on 24.12.2012, pursuant to which she joined on 26.12.2012 against the vacant post advertised in the year 1999. Thereby, the benefit admissible to the petitioner cannot be denied. Thus the order passed by the authority denying the benefit to the petitioner vide Annexures-10 and 11, i.e. dated 25.05.2017 and 30.05.2017 cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same are liable to quashed and thereby are quashed. More so, the principle has already been decided by this Court in the case of Anand Das (supra) and the Tribunal has also passed similar orders, which has been made confirmed by this Court in other two connected writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 9015 of 2014 and 5320 of 2014. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of this court in the case of Anand Das (supra) and also other two writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(C) No. 9015 of 2014 and 5320 of 2014.

¶19

Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the ratio decided in such cases. The benefit as due and admissible to the petitioner be extended in accordance with law. No order as to cost.

¶20

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶21

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶22

Arun

Namita Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namita Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suchismita Tripathy Vs Vice Chancellor,Ouat,Bbsr

Pitabas Routray Vs State of Odisha

Akshaya Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Manu Hati Vs State of Odisha

Pramila Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Rajesh Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha