Disposed

State of Odisha v. Balabhadra Majhi

Orissa HC26 Apr 2024WA/1752/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeal against a single-judge order directing regularisation and revised pension of a retired Gana Sikhyaka appointed in 2008. The State did not challenge the regularisation direction; both sides agreed no pension was due under the 1992 Pension Rules. The appeal was disposed of observing that no right to pension under those Rules accrues to the respondent.

What the court decided

AI extract

State of Odisha Vs Balabhadra Majhi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1752 of 2023

¶2

State of Odisha and others

¶3

…. Appellants Mr. M.K. Khuntia, AGA

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Balabhadra Majhi

¶6

…. Respondent Mr. Umakanta Sahoo, Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

26.04.2024

Order No.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶14

The State of Odisha has preferred the present intra-Court appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 11.11.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.15345 of 2022. The operative portion of the said judgment is thus:-

¶15

“19. Taking into consideration the factual and legal aspects, as delineated above, this Court is of the considered view that the opposite parties cannot deny the benefit of regularization of service to the petitioner as Level-V Asst. Teacher, as the petitioner has got requisite academic qualification and has also acquired training qualification and otherwise also satisfies the eligibility criteria for regularization. Therefore, for non-acquisition of OTET qualification, he cannot be denied the benefit of regularization. If the petitioner has not acquired the OTET qualification by 31th March 2019, he may not be entitled to incremental benefit, but that ipso facto cannot deny the benefit of regularization to him. Accordingly, this Court

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

directs the opposite parties to regularize the service of the petitioner as Level-V Asst. Teacher on completion of eight years as Gana Sikhyaka, as per the notification dated 22.12.2016. As he has already retired from service, he should be extended such benefit notionally from the date of completion of eight years as Gana Sikhyaka by regularizing his service as Level-V Asst. Teacher. Since the petitioner has already retired, his pension be revised and he should be granted pensionary benefits in the revised scale of pay admissible to him by fixing the same notionally, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment.

¶18

20. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”

¶19

It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as “Gana Sikhyaka” on 05.07.2008, pursuant to which he has joined on 11.07.2008 under Education Guaranteed Scheme.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of Odisha has submitted that the service of the respondent has already been regularised and the State does not question now, the correctness of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment to the extent it relates to regularisation of service of the respondent. He has, however, submitted that the respondent is not entitled to any pension under the Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992. He has submitted that if the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is clarified to the said extent, the purpose of the present appeal shall be served. He has submitted that in any case, the respondent cannot claim pension under the said Pension Rules.

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

Learned counsel representing the respondent does not controvert the submission that the respondent is not entitled to pension in accordance with Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992, however, the respondent is entitled to get retiral benefits under New Pension Scheme, he contends.

¶23

Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties as noted above, this writ appeal stands disposed of with an observation that by the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.11.2022, no right accrues to the respondent to get pension in accordance with Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992.

¶24

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

¶25

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶26

MRS/laxmikant

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 29-Apr-2024 14:27:48

¶29

Page 3 of 3

State of Odisha v. Balabhadra Majhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State of Odisha v. Balabhadra Majhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kartikeswar Panda Vs Mahanadi Coalfields

Janaki Ray Bagel Babu Vs Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak, I.A.S.

Sarat Chandra Mohapatra Vs Collector Cum D.M. Cuttack

Niranjan Rout Vs Anu Gargh, I.A.S.

Kedarnath Sahoo Vs Lalatendu Jena, Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bbsr

State of Odisha Vs Subhrajeet Rout