Quashed

Niranjan Panigrahi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC10 May 2023WP(C)/11721/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order rejecting pension claims after a coordinate bench previously directed authorities to grant pension. This single-judge bench quashed the rejection order, held the earlier decision applied, and remanded the matter for pension calculation and disbursement within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 03.04.2023 quashed; case remanded to authorities to calculate and disburse pension benefits within six weeks.

Niranjan Panigrahi Vs State of Odisha — Succession and Inheritance | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.11721 of 2023

¶3

Niranjan Panigrahi

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Satyajit Behera, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Arnav Behera, A.S.C.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

10.05.2023

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

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶17

“Under the circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs by quashing the impugned order dated 3.4.2023 passed y the Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-9;

¶18

And further be pleased to direct the Opp. Parties to sanction pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner forthwith with interest on delayed payment of pension as per Dhruba Charan Panda’s case.

¶19

And pass such other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper.”

¶20

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

Petitioner, who is a Diploma Holder in Electrical Engineering, was appointed as Additional Sub-Assistant Engineer vide order dated 7.3.1981 in the office of the Opposite Party No.2-Collector, Koraput. Pursuant to such appointment order, the Petitioner joined in service and continued to discharge his duties. During his service carrier, the Petitioner was posted in different ITDAs against the post of Junior Engineer starting from 1.11.1998, i.e., whereby he was posted at ITDA, Rayagada. Thereafter, he has been transferred to various ITDAs. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in view of ORSP Rules, 2008, the pay of the Petitioner was fixed in PB-2 in the scale of pay of Rs.9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. He further submitted that the Petitioner also receiving periodically increments as sanctioned by the authority from time to time. Finally, the Petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.4.2014 has retired from service.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that after retirement from service, the Petitioner was paid provisional pension as per order dated 1.5.2014. Thereafter, vide letter dated 9.6.2014 of the Government, the provisional pension of the Petitioner was stopped vide letter dated 15.2.2016. Challenging the aforesaid letter dated 15.02.2016, the Petitioner approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack by filing O.A. No.2013(C)/2016. After abolition of the Tribunal, the O.A. was transferred to this Court and renumbered as WPC(OAC) No.2013 of 2016 and vide judgment dated 06.12.2022, the pension was allowed and the impugned order dated 15.2.2016 was quashed. The judgment passed by this Court on 06.12.2022 has been appended to this writ petition as Annexure-8.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that despite such direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition, the Petitioner has

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

not been paid the pensionary as well as service and financial benefits as due and admissible to the Petitioner as per the rules. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties claiming such benefits which was accrued in favor of the Petitioner by virtue of the judgment dated 06.12.2022. However, the authority without application of mind has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner and he has not been extended the financial and pensionary benefits as due and admissible to him. Accordingly, challenging the said rejection order dated 03.04.2023, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶27

Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the StateOpposite Parties, on the other hand, submitted that the representation of the Petitioner was duly considered by the authorities and the same was disposed vide order dated 03.04.2023 under Annexure-9 to the writ petition. He further submitted that the entitlement of the Petitioner has been considered keeping in view the judgment dated 06.12.2022 passed by this Court in WPC(OAC) No.2103 of 2016. After such consideration, the authorities found that the appointment of the Petitioner was not an isolated one, but appointment made pursuant to a decision of the Government and he was posted to ITDA, Jeypore. As such, Collector being the Chairman of ITDA has issued appointment letter to the Petitioner. It is further contended by the learned Additional Standing Counsel that as per Bye Law of the ITDA, Governing Body is vested with power to create a sanctioned new post. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the employees who have been appointed by ITDA cannot be treated as regular Government employee. Therefore, they are not governed by the rules and regulations applicable to the Government employees. Accordingly, it is urged before this Court that the Petitioner is not a Government employee and, as such, he is not entitled to pension benefits as claimed by the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, learned

¶28

// 4 //

¶29

Additional Standing Counsel submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should not be entertained.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the factual background of the present case and further a close scrutiny of the judgment dated 06.12.2022 passed by this Court in WPC(OAC) No.2103 of 2016, this Court observes that after detail analysis of the factual as well as legal position in the above referred case, a coordinate Bench of this Court while considering the case of the Petitioner has held that it would be incorrect to treat him as an employee exclusively of the said ITDA, as otherwise, he could not have been transferred to as many as four ITDAs after being so appointed. Therefore, the stand taken by the Government that the Petitioner is an employee of the society is not tenable. Finally by disposing of the writ petition, this Court directed the Opposite Parties to take steps to grant pension and pensionary benefits as admissible in law to the Petitioner without any further delay and in any case, not later than two months from the date of communication of that order.

¶31

On careful analysis of the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in a case of the Petitioner, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the Opposite Party No.1-Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government of Odisha, ST & SC Development, M & BCW Department under Annexure-9 is contrary to the judgment of this Court in the above referred case and, as such, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Parties with a further direction to implement the judgment dated 06.12.2022 under Annexure-8 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is needless to say that pursuant to the direction by a coordinate Bench of this Court, the authorities are directed to calculate the benefits as due and admissible to

¶32

// 5 //

¶33

the Petitioner and the same be disbursed in favour of the Petitioner within the aforesaid time stipulation.

¶34

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶35

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶36

Debasis

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: PA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2023 16:00:37

Niranjan Panigrahi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Panigrahi 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

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

Naresh Kumar Agrawal Vs Ramesh Kumar Agrawal

Kailash Nath Pattanaik Vs State of Odisha

Dhiren Naik Vs Union of India

Debaki Behera Vs State of Odisha

Chandra Sekhar Das Vs State of Odisha