Allowed

Sangita Badi v. Revenue and Disaster Mgmt.Dept.

Orissa HC10 May 2022WPC(OAS)/31/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, selected via 1995 advertisement for S.C. female vacancy in 2000 but appointed only in 2007 due to respondent's delay, sought inclusion under pension rules. Court held respondent delayed illegal compared to similarly placed candidates and ordered benefits granted within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to extend benefits of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and GPF (O) Rules, 1938 to the petitioner within three months from date of order.

Sangita Badi Vs Revenue and Disaster Mgmt.Dept. — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WPC(OAS) No.31 of 2015

¶3

In the matter of an application under Section 19 of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985.

¶4

Sangita Badi …. Petitioner
-versus-
Revenue & Disaster …. Opposite Parties
Management Deptt.
For Petitioner : M/s. S.K. Purohit, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : M/s. M.K. Balabantaray
Standing Counsel
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 10.05.2022 and Date of Order:10.05.2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶5

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .

¶6

1 . This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶7

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Purohit, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.

¶8

Balabantaray, learned counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties.

¶9

3. The Petitioner has filed the writ Petition with the following

¶10

prayer:-

¶11

// 2 //

¶12

“i) Direct the respondent to take the applicant’s service into the fold of benefit under O.C.S.((Pension)) Rules 1992 and under G.P.F.(O) rules like date her co recruits.

¶13

ii) And pass any further order/direction as deemed fit and proper by your lordships.”

¶14

4. It is submitted by Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the Petitioner that vide the advertisement issued on 19.5.1995 under Annexure-1, the Petitioner not only made her application as against the vacancy meant for S.C. female candidate, but also her name was duly reflected in the select list published by the office of Opp. Party No.2 on 07.01.2000 under Annexure-2. In the said list and in respect of S.C., female candidate, the Petitioner’s name was reflected at serial No.2.

¶15

5. It is submitted that even though the Petitioner was duly selected with her name finding place at Sl. No.2 in respect of S.C., Female, the Petitioner in view of the vacancy advertised for such S.C. Female candidates at 4 in Annexure-1, the Petitioner should have been provided with the appointment. But it is submitted that instead of her qualifying the test and her name reflected in Annexure-2, the Petitioner was not issued with the order of appointment and was kept waiting.

¶16

6. It is submitted that only vide office order dtd.24.03.2007 under Annexure-4, Petitioner was provided with the appointment as Junior

¶17

Page 2 of 6

¶18

// 3 //

¶19

Clerk. Pursuant to the said order, the Petitioner not only joined, but also she was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk vide office order dtd.13.09.2012.

¶20

7. It is submitted that since the Petitioner was appointed as per order dtd.24.03.2007 under Annexure-4, she was debarred from being covered under the Provisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938. It is also submitted that even though the Petitioner was kept waiting till order at Annexure-4 was issued in her favour, but person similarly placed and selected vide notification under Annexure-2, were provided with the appointment immediately and accordingly they were covered under the provision of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938.

¶21

8. It is also submitted that since because of the latches on the part of the Opp. Party, the Petitioner was kept waiting and provided with the appointment only vide order dtd.24.03.2007 under Annexure-4 even though she was declared selected in the notification dtd.07.01.2000, the Petitioner’s claim for her inclusion under the provision of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938 needs favourable consideration.

¶22

9. Mr. Purohit in support of his aforesaid submission relied on the decision of the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal dtd.19.09.2013 passed in O.A. No.1612(C) of 2011 and 1613(C) of 2011. In the said decision, learned Tribunal in a case arising out of

¶23

Page 3 of 6

¶24

// 4 //

¶25

the present selection process held the Petitioners therein to be covered under the provisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938.

¶26

10. Mr. Purohit accordingly submitted that the decision rendered by the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid case squarely applies to the case of the Petitioner. It is also submitted that the order of learned Tribunal passed in the aforementioned case was never assailed by the State-Opp. Parties and accordingly the same has attained finality

¶27

in the eye of law.

¶28

11. Mr. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties submitted that since the Petitioner was appointed vide order dtd.24.03.2007 under Annexure-4 i.e. after coming into the force of the Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2005, which came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2005, the Petitioner cannot be covered under the provisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 as well as GPF(O) Rules, 1938. Accordingly, Mr. Balabantaray prayed for dismissal of the writ Petition.

¶29

12. Heard learned counsel for Parties at length. Perused the materials available on record. There is no dispute that pursuant to advertisement issued under Annexure-1 on 19.05.1995, the Petitioner was duly selected with publication of the select list vide notification dtd.07.01.2000 under Annexure-2.

¶30

Page 4 of 6

¶31

// 5 //

¶32

13. In view of the vacancy available and reflected in Annexure-1 in respect of S.C., female candidates at 4, the name of the Petitioner being placed at Sl. No.2 in the list of S.C., female candidates, she should have been provided with the appointment after publication of the notification under Annexure-2. The opp. Parties in their counter affidavit have not assigned any cogent reason for not providing appointment to the Petitioner immediately after issuance of the notification under Annexure-2 and keeping the same pending till the order dtd.24.03.2007 was issued under Annexure-4.

¶33

14. It is also not in dispute that some of the selected candidates, whose name finds place in Annexure-2 were provided with the appointment immediately after publication of the said notification and accordingly they came under the provisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 as well as GPF(O) Rules, 1938.

¶34

15. Mr. Balabantaray though was provided with the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the aforementioned O.A. No.1612(C) of 2011 and O.A. No.1613(C) of 2011 but submitted that he has no instruction as to whether the order of the learned Tribunal has been assailed before this Court or not. But he fairly submitted that similar issue has been held in the affirmative by the learned Tribunal.

¶35

Page 5 of 6

¶36

// 6 //

¶37

16. Be that as it may, in view of the admitted position with regard

¶38

to the selection of the Petitioner with publication of the select list under Annexure-2 on 07.01.2000 and the vacancies available in respect of S.C., Female candidate as reflected under Annexre-1 and the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the aforementioned case, the Petitioner’s claim for her inclusion under the provisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938 needs favourable consideration.

¶39

17. Accordingly, this Court while allowing the prayer made in the writ Petition directs the Opp. Parties to extend the benefit of coverage under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938 in favour of the Petitioner. It is further directed that the Opp. Parties shall complete the entire exercise within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶40

18. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ Petition is disposed of.

¶41

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶42

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 10^th of May, 2022/sangita

¶43

Page 6 of 6

Sangita Badi v. Revenue and Disaster Mgmt.Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Badi v. Revenue and Disaster Mgmt.Dept.

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

Pradeep Kumar Jena Vs D.G. and and I.G. of Police, Cuttack

Dr. Kadambini Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Sadasib Das Vs State of Odisha

Bijaya Kumar Khuntia Vs State of Odisha

Dr.Bhabani Shankar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Dr.Damayanti Roul Vs State of Odisha