Disposed

Kailash Nath Pattanaik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC9 May 2023WP(C)/11417/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Odissa disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to count the petitioner's past service in a Job-Contract Establishment towards pension benefits, relying on settled judicial precedents.

What did the court decide?

Directed Opposite Party No.1 to consider the petitioner's representation under Annexure-4 and dispose of it within eight weeks; to sanction and disburse benefits within six weeks if eligible.

Kailash Nath Pattanaik Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.11417 of 2023

¶3

Kailash Nath Pattnaik

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. T. Pattanaik, A.S.C.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Order No. 09.05.2023

¶13

¶14

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel.

¶16

The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to count his past service rendered in the Job-Contract Establishment for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefit within a stipulated period.

¶17

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that similar matter has come up before this Court in O.J.C. No. 2405 of 1985 and after constitution of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal the same was transferred to the Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 11 of 1993. The said case was disposed of on 21.10.1994 by the learned Tribunal by following the decisions of the Apex Court and by giving direction to the competent authority to count the past service rendered by the Petitioner in Job Contract Establishment towards pension and pensionary benefit and after such orders were passed, pension of the

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

Petitioner was directed to be calculated, drawn and disbursed in his favour within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. The order passed in T.A. No. 11 of 1993 was challenged before the Apex Court by the State, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.07.1995.

¶20

It is further contended that similar matter has also come up before this Court in O.J.C. No. 2147 of 1991, which was decided on 24.03.1992 and this Court has considered the case of Job Contract employees for regularization of service and for pension and pensionary benefits. In O.A. No. 3020 (C) of 2003 ( Nityananda Biswal v. State of Orissa and others ), the Tribunal vide order dated 04.01.2004 also directed that the period of the engagement of the Petitioner in job contract establishment should be taken into account as qualifying service and accordingly his pension and other pensionary benefits be revised and paid to the Petitioner therein. The order passed in O.A. No. 3020 (C) of 2003 was also challenged by the State before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14244 of 2006. This Court vide order dated 09.04.2014 dismissed the writ application preferred by the state against the order passed by the Tribunal. The State also preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) CC No. 12573 of 2015 against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14244 of 2006, which was dismissed by the apex Court vide order dated 13.07.2015.

¶21

Additionally learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that W.P.(C) No.21611 of 2011 (All Orissa Settlement and Consolidation Non-Gazetted Technical Officers Association, Dhenkanal approached this Court challenging the order passed in O.A. No.3665 (C) of 2001 dated 10.03.2011 by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the respective parties by taking into consideration the order passed in T.A.

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

No.11 of 1993 dated 21.10.1994 in the other related matters including the judgment in (Nityananda Biswal v. State of Orissa and others) came to a conclusion that the position of law is well settled and nothing remains to be decided in that case. Accordingly, order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and accordingly the Opposite Parties were directed to extend all such benefits to all the members of the Petitioners association in terms of the direction given by the Court. The said order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.21611 of 2011 was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the State of Orissa by filing SLP (Civil) Diary No.(s) 36299/2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsel for the State-appellant was pleased to dismiss the SLP. Therefore, the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) 21611 of 2022 has attained finality.

¶24

Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer made in the Writ Petition by the Petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that in view of the amendment to Rule 18 i.e. after inception of sub-Rule-6 to Rule 18, the Petitioner is not eligible to get pension. He further contended that the amendment of the Rule had not been taken note of by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in delivering the judgment in Nityananda Biswal as well as All Orissa Settlement and Consolidation Non-Gazetted Technical Officers Association, Dhenkanal case. He further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Yudhisthir Padhee -v.- State of Odisha , which has taken note of the aforesaid amendment.

¶25

In view of the above settled position of law, nothing remains to be reconsidered by this Court. Accordingly the Opposite Party No.1 is hereby directed to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-4 and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a

¶26

// 4 //

¶27

period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In the event the Opposite Party No.1 comes to a conclusion that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit claimed by him and is covered by the judgments referred herein above, then such benefit be sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner within six weeks thereafter.

¶28

With the above observation, the writ application stands disposed

¶29

of.

¶30

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶31

( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Jagabandhu
JAGABAND Digitally signed by JAGABANDHU BEHERA
HU BEHERA Date: 2023.05.09 19:54:48 +05'30'

¶32

Jagabandhu

Kailash Nath Pattanaik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Nath Pattanaik 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan Rout Vs State of Odisha

Shyam Sundar Sethy Vs State of Odisha

Jayanta Kumar Patel Vs State of Odisha

Shyam Sundar Naik Vs Chief Resident Commission, Govt. of Odisha, New Delhi

Naresh Kumar Agrawal Vs Ramesh Kumar Agrawal

Soumya Ranjan Sahu Vs State of Odisha