Dismissed¶37

Pitambar Swain v. State of Odisha

Pensionary benefits – Work charged employee – Continuity of service

Orissa HC3 Dec 2025WP(C)/21314/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No.21314 of 2023, decided 03.12.2025 by Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy. Pitambar Swain v. State of Odisha & Others. Pension and pensionary benefits of a retired work charged employee; break in service between transfer order dt.31.10.1981 and re-engagement as work charged Khalasi vide order dt.17.11.1998 (Tribunal O.A. No.3093(C ) of 1994); no continuity of work charged employment from 23.04.1974 to 31.05.2001; decision in Narasu Pradhan held not applicable (distinguished); rejection order under Annexure-23 upheld; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no document showing that the Petitioner was not allowed to join in terms of the order of transfer issued on 31.10.1981. ¶32

Pitambar Swain Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to pension and other pensionary benefits by treating the entire period from 23.04.1974 to 31.05.2001 as continuous work charged employment, notwithstanding the break in service following the transfer order dt.31.10.1981 and his re-engagement as work charged Khalasi on 17.11.1998. +2 more

¶26

Court's answer

There is no document showing that the Petitioner was not allowed to join in terms of the order of transfer issued on 31.10.1981.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Since the Petitioner remained out of employment from 31.10.1981 until his re-engagement on 17.11.1998 against a different post, it cannot be held that he was in continuous engagement in the Work Charged establishment from 23.04.1974 till superannuation on 31.05.2001.

¶36

Key takeaways

The Petitioner's claim is not covered by the decision in the case of Narasu Pradhan.ratio¶37
The Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dt.02.05.2023 under Annexure-23 rejecting the Petitioner's claim to pension and other pensionary benefits, and is not inclined to interfere with it.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pensionary benefits – Work charged employee – Continuity of service – Petitioner appointed work charged Amin vide order dt.22.04.1974 (joined 23.04.1974); transferred to Rayagada vide order dt.31.10.1981 (Annexure-2) but did not join; re-engaged as work charged Khalasi vide order dt.17.11.1998 (Annexure-3) pursuant to Tribunal's order in O.A. No.3093(C ) of 1994; retired on superannuation on 31.05.2001. Claim for pension rejected vide order dt.02.05.2023 (Annexure-23). Held: (i) no document shows the Petitioner was prevented from joining at the transferred place; (ii) having remained out of employment from 31.10.1981 till re-engagement on 17.11.1998 against a different post, the service cannot be treated as continuous work charged employment from 23.04.1974 to 31.05.2001; (iii) the claim is not covered by the decision in Narasu Pradhan; (iv) no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.21314 of 2023

Pitambar Swain

….

Petitioner

Mr. S. Behera, Adv.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Others

¶8

….

¶9

Opposite Parties

¶10

Mr. S.P. Das,ASC

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order

03.12.2025

No.

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

¶18

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶19

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt. 02.05.2023 so issued by Opp. party No.1 under Annexure-23. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits has been rejected.

¶20

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was duly engaged as a work charged Amin vide order of appointment issued on 22.04.1974, where

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

he joined on 23.04.1974 till his retirement on 31.05.2001. It is contended that while so continuing in the work charged establishment as an Amin, Petitioner was transferred to Rayagada vide order dt.31.10.1981 under Annexure-2. However, on the face of such order of transfer, Petitioner was not allowed to join in his place of transfer at Rayagada and subsequently after much persuasion and vide order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.3093(C ) of 1994, Petitioner vide Office order dt.17.11.1998 under Annexure-3 was re-engaged as a work charged Khalasi and posted in the establishment of Opp. party No.4. While so continuing, after being re-engaged vide order dt.17.11.1998, Petitioner retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2001.

¶23

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was initially engaged in the work charged establishment as an Amin, where he joined on 23.04.1974 and because inaction of the authorities in not allowing him to join, on the face of his transfer vide order dt.31.10.1981 and subsequently, he was re-engaged vide order dt.17.11.1998 under Annexure-3 , the entire period of service is to be taken as work charged employment under the Opp. Parties and

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

accordingly in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Narasu Pradhan , so upheld by this Court as well as by the Apex Court, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits. However, without proper appreciation of the Petitioner’s claim, the same has been rejected vide the impugned order dt.20.05.2025 under Annexure-23.

¶27

5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. Even though it is not disputed that Petitioner was engaged as a work charged Amin, where he joined on 23.04.1974, but it is contended that pursuant to the order of transfer issued vide order dt.31.10.1981 under Annexure-2, Petitioner never joined in his place of transfer.

¶28

5.1. However, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.3093(C ) of 1994, Petitioner was re-engaged as a work charged Khalasi vide order dt.17.11.1998 under Annexure-3. While so continuing, Petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.05.2001. It is contended that since after being transferred vide order dt.31.10.1981, Petitioner never joined, till he was appointed afresh vide order

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

dt.17.11.1998, it cannot be held that Petitioner was in continuous engagement in the work charged establishment from his initial date of appointment i.e. 23.04.1974 till his retirement on 31.05.2001. It is accordingly contended that claim of the Petitioner is not covered by the decision in the case of Narasu Pradhan so relied on by the Petitioner.

¶32

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was engaged as a Contractual Amin in the work charged establishment, where he joined on 23.04.1974. While so continuing, vide order dt.31.10.1981, Petitioner was transferred and posted to Superintendent Engineer, Rayagada Irrigation Circle. No document is there showing that Petitioner was not allowed to join in terms of the order of transfer issued on 31.10.1981.

¶33

6.1. However, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. NO.3093(C) of 1994, Petitioner was re-engaged as a Work Charged Khalasi vide order dt.17.11.1998 and while so continuing, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2001. Since Petitioner after being transferred on 31.10.1981 remained out of employment till he was re-engaged as against a different post vide order

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

// 5 //

¶36

dt.17.11.1998, it cannot be held that Petitioner was in continuous engagement in the Work Charged establishment w.e.f 23.04.1974 till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2001.

¶37

6.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is the view of this Court that claim of the Petitioner is not covered by the decision in the case of Narasu Pradhan and this Court also finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order rejecting his claim to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefit vide order dt.02.05.2023 under Annexure-23. While not inclined to interfere with the said order, this Court dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶38

sangita

¶39

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cut tack Date: 09-Dec-2025 18:07:03

¶42

Page 5 of 5

Pitambar Swain v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pitambar Swain v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan Sahoo Vs Cesu,Ceo

Bidulata Huika Vs State of Odisha

Harmohan Mohanty Vs Arabind Agrawal,Ias

Sanjay Kumar Das Vs State of Orissa

Jagamohan Ojha Vs the Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Bbsr

Nilakantha Das Vs the Dy. Chief Labour Commnr. Central and Appellate Authority Under P.G. Act., Bbsr