Disposed

Gadadhar Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 May 2023WP(C)/13931/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner sought regularization and pensionary benefits as a work-charged Amin, relying on similar benefits granted to a former colleague. The Court stayed the matter, directing the respondent to re-examine the case under the binding precedent of Narusu Pradhan and extend similar benefits if the precedent applies.

What did the court decide?

Director respondent to re-examine petitioner's case under Narusu Pradhan precedent and extend similar benefits within six months if applicable.

Gadadhar Pradhan 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.13931 of 2023

¶3

Gadadhar Pradhan

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. P.K.Mohapatra , Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr.Saswat Das, A.G.A.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

¶11

Order No. ORDER 15.05.2023

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to Opposite Parties to give all benefit to him against the post of Amin as per Orissa Government Service Rules and regularize his service by calculating five years of continuous service as work charged employee and give him all service benefits on that basis including pensionary benefit immediately within a stipulated period.

¶16

Mr.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that similar benefit has been extended to one Narusu Pradhan. As such the Petitioner having stood in similar footing, he is entitled to

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

grant all the benefits.

¶19

Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State contended that the Petitioner has already retired from service and he was working as Amin. He further contended that the claim of the Petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law.

¶20

It is contended that one Narusu Pradhan, a similar circumstanced person like the Petitioner had filed O.A.No.1189(C) of 2006 praying for retiral benefits. The Tribunal allowed the retiral pensionary benefits in his favour vide order dated 11.06.2009, which was challenged by the State before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5377 of 2010. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 19.12.2011 and confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. Thereafter against the order passed by this Court, the State has preferred SLP in Civil Appeal No.22498 of 2012, the same was also dismissed on 07.01.2013.

¶21

In that view of the matter, the relief claimed by the Petitioner is fully covered by the judgment of the Tribunal passed in the case of Narusu Pradhan, which has been confirmed by this Court as well as the apex Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a fresh representation within two weeks. In the event such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Further, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to examine whether the Petitioner’s case is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Narusu Pradhan, which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the event, the authority comes to the conclusion that the Petitioner is entitled to the relief as has been

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

claimed by him then the benefit extended in favour of Narusu Pradhan be also extended in favour of the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such a decision.

¶24

Let the entire exercise be carried out within a period of three months.

¶25

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶26

( A.K. Mohapatra )

¶27

RKS

¶28

Judge

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: Ex-A.R.-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 17-May-2023 12:15:17

Gadadhar Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gadadhar Pradhan 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

Chandrakanta Sabat Vs Vir Bikram Yadav, Secy., Rural Works

Bijaya Kumar Parida Vs Anu Garg,Secy. to Govt.,W.R. Dept.

Debashis Sinha Vs Susil Kumar Lohani,Principal Secy.,Pr and D.W Dept.

Dhananjaya Senapati Vs State of Orissa

Nilima Tripathy Vs State of Odisha

Surendra Samal Vs State of Odisha