Debendra Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.1721 of 2025

¶2

Debendra Pradhan

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties

¶7

Engr In Chief, Water Resources Represented By Adv. – 3) Chief Engr, Northern Minor Mr. M.R.Mohanty, Irrigation Circle, Sambalpur A.G.A. 4) Supdt. Engr, Minor Irrigation Div., Sundargarh 5) Supdt. Engr, Minor Irrigation Div., Sundargarh 6) Secy To Govt. Of Odisha, Finance Dept., Bbsr

¶8

1. Accountant General(a And E) ,

¶9

Bbsr

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR

MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

24.02.2025

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

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned Standing Counsel for AG Odisha. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶18

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the

¶19

Page 1 of 5.

¶20

following prayer:

¶21

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

¶22

i). direct the opp. parties to regularise him in service for a day prior to his superannuation notionally and grant pension and pensionary benefits under the old rule taking into consideration his initial appointment 01.05.1989 as has been given to Sarbeswar Bhujabal, Pitambar Sahoo, Narusu Pradhan, Chandra Nandi, Jibardhan Bag and others in the light of the decision in the case of Sarbeswar Bhujabal v. State of Odisha, O.A.No. 606/2015, which has been affirmed in W.P.(c) No. 7680/2019, decided on 15.11.2019 and SLP(C)No. 7541/2020,decided vide order dt. 31.10.2022 and Narusu Pradhan O.A. No. 1189(c)/2006, which has been affirmed in W.P.(C) No. 5377 of 2010, vide order dt. 19.12.2011 and SLP in Civil Appeal No. 22498 of 2012, vide order dt. 07.01.2013 and State of Odisha vrs. Pitambar Sahoo, W.P.(c) No. 24041/2017 (decided on 20.12.2017), which has been affirmed in SLP© Diary No.30806/2018, Jibardhan Bag v. State of Odisha, W.P (C) No. 25502 of 2014, decided on 13.07.2022,which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP(CIVIL) Diary No. 5867 of 2023 decided on 24.02.2023 and Chandra Nandi v. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.l9550 of 2011(decided on 03.02.2021), which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme court vide order dt. 06.05.2022 in SLP(c) No. 21180/2021, State of Orissa and others vrs. Jyostna Rani Patnaik and others, W.P.(C) No. 1534/2008 and W.P.(C) No.3 8771 of 2020 (Pradip Kumar Panigrahi Vrs. State of Odisha and Ors.) decided on 30.01.2023, which has been affirmed in SLP(Civil) Diary No.(S) 50364 of 2023, decided on 02.01.2024 as well as the benefits given to similarly situated persons vide Annexure-7; ii). Pass such other order (s)/direction(s) as would be deem fit and proper in the bonafide interest of Justice.”

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was initially appointed on 01.05.1989 on the NMR basis by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Sundargarh.

¶24

Page 2 of 5.

¶25

Thereafter, the Petitioner continued to service uninterruptedly. When the Petitioner was continuing, the Notification of the Finance Department dated 15.05.1997 had come into force. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of such Notification, the Petitioner should have been brought over to the Work Charge establishment. Thereafter his services should have been regularized as has been provided in the Resolution dated 15.05.1997. However, the same was not done by the authority by deviating the Notification dated 15.05.1997. On 29.01.2010, the Petitioner was brought over to the Work Charged establishment. Finally, the Petitioner submitted a representation before the Opposite parties for regularization of his service, but the Petitioner was not considerable to be regularized in service despite the decision of the Government. Finally, the Petitioner was retired from service on 30.09.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Khalasi. In view of the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.1 be directed to pay the pensionary benefit to the Petitioner taking into consideration the past service rendered by the Petitioner both as NMR as well as his service rendered in the Work Charged establishment. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the retirement benefit as well as the pensionary benefit as is due and admissible to the Petitioner.

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that since the Petitioner does not have the qualifying service period, he is not entitled to pensionary benefit. Accordingly, the authorities have not considered the case of the Petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit. However, with regard to payment of retiral

¶27

Page 3 of 5.

¶28

dues, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the amount as is due and admissible to the Petitioner has already been paid to the Petitioner on his superannuation from service. Accordingly it was submitted that the Writ Petition was devoid of merit and the same be dismissed.

¶29

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful examination of the background facts of the present case and keeping in view the well settled position of law that once an employee who was working initially as MMR, thereafter brought over to Work Charged establishment and finally, he retired from service and his case shall be considered for payment of pensionary benefit by taking into consideration as how much period of service rendered in Work charged and NMR establishment, calculate the minimum qualifying period of service for grant of pensionary benefit. Such a proposition of law as has been propounded by this Court has already been accepted by many judgments of this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Opposite Parties examine the case of the petitioner and to calculate the minimum qualifying service period of the Petitioner taking the shortfall period from the service period of the Petitioner as work Charged employee/NMR and in the event it is found that the petitioner is otherwise entitled to the benefit claimed, the benefit which is due and admissible to the Petitioner on the basis of his last pay drawn accordingly, the same be sanctioned and disbursed to the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of the certified copy of this order. In the event, the Petitioner though is getting any other pensionary benefit, the same shall be surrendered before the Government. Any decision

¶30

Page 4 of 5.

¶31

taken be communicated to the Petitioner within 10 days of taking such decision.

¶32