Remanded

Nanda Kishore Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC27 Mar 2023WP(C)/6435/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three-Judge Bench set aside the impugned order rejecting the petitioners service regularization claim and remanded the matter to consider the legal position in Narsu Pradhan case and extend benefits accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 21.01.2023 set aside; matter remanded to Opposite Party No.1 to consider ratio in Narsu Pradhan case and extend benefits; directions given for timeline.

Nanda Kishore Panda Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6435 of 2023

¶2

Nanda Kishore Panda

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Iswar Mohanty, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

27.03.2023

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 appearing 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

“The Petitioner therefore most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties to show-cause as to why the Office Order No.1874 Dated 21.01.2023 under Annexure-2 passed by the Additional Secretary, Department of Water Resources shall not be quashed and as to why direction shall not be issued to the Opposite Parties to treat the service of the Petitioner to be regularized with effect from the date on which the Petitioner completed 5 years of service as work charge employee, pay him in differential salary, pensionary benefits and other service benefits and pay the dues of the petitioner on due calculation with a specified time as would be deemed just and proper.

¶18

And if the Opposite Parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause, make the said Rule absolute;

¶19

And pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

of the case.”

¶22

Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the Petitioner was appointed as a work charged Khalasi in the office of Executive Engineer, Ramialla Irrigation Division on 21.01.1976. Petitioner was completed 5 years of service as a work charged employee on 21.01.1981. It is further contended by Mr. Mishra that on 10.8.1981, the Government of Odisha introduced an instruction to Odisha work-charged Employees (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instruction, 1974 to regularize the work charged employees, who have completed 5 years of service. While the matter stood thus, in the year 2005, the State Government issued another instruction to regularize the services of all the work charged employees at least one day before their retirement. He further contended that the Petitioner has retired from service w.e.f. 31.08.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. However, before his retirement, the services of the Petitioner were not regularized even for a day as has been decided in the 1974 instruction and the instruction issued by the Government in the year 2005. After his retirement, the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Parties to regularize his service and grant him pensionary benefits, however, the same was not considered by the Opposite Parties. In the year 2015, the Petitioner approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.(C) No.4011 of 2015. While, the matter was pending before Tribunal, the OAT was abolished. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to this Court and renumbered as WPC(OAC) No.4011 of 2015. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.7.2022 disposed of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to take the lawful decision on the representation of the Petitioner.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated 21.01.2023 rejected the representation of the Petitioner without considering the law laid down

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

by the Tribunal in the case of Narsu Pradhan v. State of Odisha (O.A. No.1189(C) of 2006), which was confirmed not only by this Court but also by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner has approached this Court again by filing the present case challenging the impugned rejection order dated 21.01.2023.

¶26

In course of his argument, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner also referred to the order passed by this Court in Sadananda Setha v. State of Odisha and others (WPC(OAC) No.865 of 2018 decided on 17.12.2021). He also relied upon the order of this Court by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arakhita Sahu v. State of Odisha & Others (WPC(OAC) No.3395 of 2017 decided on 22.07.2021).

¶27

On a careful analysis of those judgments, this Court is of the view that the judgments of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner have been delivered by relying upon the law laid down in Narsu Pradhan’ s case (supra).

¶28

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that in one such case, i.e., in Balabhadra Naik v. State of Odisha & Ors. (WPC(OAC) No.3388 of 2017) which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.07.2021 holding that the Petitioner is entitled to the relief as has been extended to the Petitioner in Narsu Pradhan’s case (supra) and, accordingly, directed the authorities to grant such benefits to the Petitioner. The said order of the coordinate Bench in Balabhadra Naik’s case has been challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by filing W.A. No.432 of 2022 and the Division Bench vide order dated 23.08.2022 has been pleased to stay operation of order dated 20^th July, 2021 passed in Balabhadra Naik’s case (supra). However, learned Additional Standing Counsel

¶29

// 4 //

¶30

appearing for the State-Opposite Parties does not dispute the proposition of law laid down in Narsu Pradhan’s case and that the same has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after dismissal of the said SLP.

¶31

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and upon a careful consideration of the background facts of the present case and on analysis of the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the law laid down in Narsu Pradhan’s case (supra) by the Tribunal, so far work charged employees are concerned, and the order to regularize the service for a day before the retirement and to grant minimum pension has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. After dismissal of the SLP in Narsu Pradhan’s case (supra), the decision of the Tribunal in Narsu Pradhn case (supra) has attained finality. Therefore, this Court is also of the considered view that the Opposite Party No.1 while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner vide impugned order dated 21.01.2023 under Annexure-2 has not considered the applicability of the ratio laid down in Narsu Pradhan’s case (supra) to the fact of the Petitioner’s case.

¶32

In such view of the matter, this Court thinks it proper to set aside the impugned order dated 21.01.2023 under Annexure-2 and, accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the matter afresh by keeping in view the ratio in Narsu Pradhan’s case (supra). Further, it is directed that in the event the Opposite Party No.1 comes to a conclusion that the fact of the Petitioner’s case is covered by the ratio in Narsu Pradhan’s case (supra), then the benefits which were extended to Narsu Pradhan be also extended to the present Petitioner. The Petitioner is, therefore, directed to approach the Opposite Party No.1 along with the certified copy of this order within a period of three

¶33

// 5 //

¶34

weeks from today. In the event the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.1 as directed hereinabove, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the Narsu Pradhan’s case (supra) and take a decision within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Any decision taken thereof shall be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶35

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

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

¶37

( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶38

Debasis

Nanda Kishore Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanda Kishore Panda 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

Jayant Kumar Panda Vs Yeshwant Kumar Jethwa, I.P.S.

Dr.P.P.K. Udayabhanu Vs State of Odisha

Gouranga Charan Mallick Vs Chief Executive Officer, Tata Power Central Odisha, Bbsr

Laxmidhar Sahoo Vs Fci, New Delhi

Ratnakar Neti Vs Supdt. of Police, Sundargarh

Raghabendra Patnaik Vs State of Odisha