Sashi Bhusan Panigrahi Vs State of Odisha

Heard Mr. S.K. Purohit, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.P. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned counsel for Sambalpur University (O.P. No.4).

¶16

The Petitioner initially worked as an Assistant Teacher in an Aided Educational Institution from 1^st July, 1970 to 18^th October, 1979 and thereafter resigned from the same and joined under Sambalpur University as a teacher. He finally retired from service as Headmaster on 31^st March, 2002. He claims for counting his service period as Assistant Teacher from 1^st July, 1970 to 18^th October, 1979 in the Aided Educational Institution for pension and pensionary benefits. His prayer has been rejected by order dated 28^th May, 2016 under Annexure-10. This is the subject matter of challenge before this court.

¶17

It is submitted by Mr. Purohit that as per Odisha Aided Education Institutions (Employees’ Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1981 (in short ‘1981

¶18

Rules’) an employee of an Aided Educational Institution is entitled for pension and pensionary benefits and therefore, the service of the Petitioner for the period from 1^st July, 1970 to 18^th October, 1979 in the Aided Education Institution should be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary purposes.

¶19

Mr. Purohit to substantiate his contention that the Petitioner’s service in the Aided Educational Institution is a qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits, relies on the decision of this court in the case of Subarna Dibya and Others v. State of Odisha , 2005 (1) OLR 168 . Perusal of said cited case reveals that it was a case relating to family pension of a primary school teacher under 1981 Rules wherein the Petitioner continued in service much after 1^st April, 1982. The said cited case deals with interpretation to the Odisha Aided Education Institutions (Non-Government Fully Aided Primary School Teachers Retirement) Rules, 1986 and the amendments brought therein subsequently. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, said cited decision is found distinguishable.

¶20

Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the University as well as Mr. Panda, learned AGA submit that said 1981 Rules came into force with effect from 1^st April, 1982 and said rules do not have any retrospective effect of application. Since the Petitioner has already left the service much prior to 1^st April, 1982, such period of service rendered by him in the Aided Educational Institution cannot be added as the qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits.

¶21

Admittedly the service of the Petitioner as a teacher under Opposite Party No.4 – University is covered under Odisha Civil Service

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

(Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short ‘1992 Rules’) and he is entitled to receive pension and other benefits in terms of 1992 Rules upon his retirement on superannuation.

¶24

So far as his service from the period of 1^st July, 1970 to 18^th October, 1979 in the Aided Education Institution is concerned, the same can only be counted as a qualifying service for pension, subject to the fact that such service of the Petitioner was in the pensionable establishment. Rule 6 of 1981 Rules stipulates that for computing length of qualifying service, the employee must have retired on or after 1^st April, 1982. Note 5 to Rule 4 of said 1981 Rules prescribes to count the period of qualifying service rendered by the employee in any nonGovernment Aided Educational Institution for the purpose of pension and other benefits.

¶25

Thus as understood from Rule 6 of said 1981 Rules, the qualifying service would be the service rendered by the employee in the Aided Education Institution if he retires on or after 1^st April, 1982. Admittedly the Petitioner resigned from service much prior to the date of coming into force of said 1981 Rules. Thus, on the date of leaving service by the Petitioner from the Aided Education Institution, i.e. 18^th October, 1979, neither the institution was a pensionable establishment under 1981 Rules nor the period of service rendered by the Petitioner till 18^th October, 1979 was covered as a pensionable service either in terms of 1981 Rules or in terms of 1992 Rules. Therefore, looking from any angle such period of service of the Petitioner from 1^st July, 1970 to 18^th October, 1979 cannot be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension or pensionary benefits. Accordingly the impugned orders rejecting the prayer of the

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

Petitioner are confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed being found without merit. However, the claim of the Petitioner for payment of gratuity as due to him, which is stated to be pending till date, shall be considered and released with applicable interest.

¶28

M.K. Panda

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 26-Sep-2024 17:42:18

¶31

Page 4 of 4

Sashi Bhusan Panigrahi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sashi Bhusan Panigrahi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya Ranjan Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Gobardhan Rana Vs State of Odisha

Kirti Ranjan Behera Vs State of Odisha

Rashmita Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Sk.Manwar Alli Vs State of Odisha

Sakuntala Dash Vs State of Odisha