P.Ramudu Reddy Vs State of Odisha

Principal Secy. Finance Represented By Adv. – 3) Collector, Ganjam Mr.U.C.Jena, ASC 4) Principal Accountant General A Mr.S.K.Patra,Standing And E, Odisha Counsel for AG Odisha

¶11

B.d.o., Beguniapada

¶12

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER

24.04.2025

Order No.

04.

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

¶17

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

¶18

The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer :

¶19

“ It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court

¶20

would be graciously pleased to :

¶21

i) Allow this Writ Petition

¶22

ii) Issue Rule NISI, asking the Opp.Parties to show cause as to why the order No.21046 dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Principal Secretary,

¶23

Page 1 of 6.

¶24

Panchayatiraj and D.W. Department vide Annexure-6 shall not be quashed and if the Opp.Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause, then issue a writ of certiorari in nature, thereby quashing the same.

¶25

iii) Further, direct to the concerned Opp.Parties to grant/release the pension and pensionary benefits along with 18% of interest in favour of the Petitioner by enrolling under OCS(Pension) Rules 1992 within a stipulated period.

¶26

iv) And/or pass an order(s), direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that being aggrieved by order dated 12.09.2024, under Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition, wherein it was stated that the Petitioner is not entitled to be granted pension under the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶28

In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.445 of 2023 with an identical prayer. This Court, vide order dated 17.01.2023, disposed of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the ratio decided in the case of Ranjan Kumar Sahu and others vs. State of Odisha and others reported in 2022(II) OLR 99 .

¶29

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after disposal of the earlier Writ Petition vide order dated 17.01.2023, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties by filing a representation under Annexure-5 on 13.02.2023. The said representation having been rejected vide order dated 12.09.2024

¶30

Page 2 of 6.

¶31

under Annexure-6, the Petitioner has once again approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶32

The factual background leading to the filing of the present case in short is that the Petitioner applied for the post of G.P. Secretary and was selected by the Selection Committee meeting held on 01.12.2004. Thereafter the Collector, Ganjam issued appointment order on 14.02.2005 in favour of the Petitioner for joining the post of V.L.W. Accordingly, the Petitioner joined in the post of VLW in Patrapur Block. Further, it is contended that the Accountant General (A&E), Odisha allotted GPF Account No.CDP (O) Z1410 in favour of the Petitioner and accordingly GPF amount was deducted and deposited in the account of the Petitioner. In support of his contention, copy of the GPF statement slip dated 04.07.2006 and 27.06.2007 have been filed along with the Writ Petition.

¶33

While the matter stood thus, the Block Development Officer, Beguniapada of Ganjam district issued a retirement notice to the Petitioner on 21.06.2022 indicating therein that the Petitioner is likely to retire with effect from 30.06.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶34

Since the Petitioner was not paid his pensionary benefit under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 after his retirement, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.445 of 2023 for release of pension and pensionary benefit taking into consideration the ratio decided in the case of Ranjan Kumar Sahu and others vs. State of Odisha and others ( supra ). The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 17.01.2023 with a direction to the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down in the case of Ranjan

¶35

Page 3 of 6.

¶36

Kumar Sahu ( supra ).

¶37

While assailing the impugned order dated 12.09.2024 under Annexure-6, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the prayer of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner initially joined in service on 14.02.2005 which is after the appointed date from which the new pension scheme has come into force by virtue of the amendment in OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 i.e. with effect from 01.01.2005. Moreover, it has been asserted by the Opposite Parties that the Petitioner was not directly recruited through any recruitment agency, therefore the case of the Petitioner cannot be equated with the case of Ranjan Kumar Sahu ( supra ) as well as the law laid down in the case of Ananda Chandra Dash. Accordingly, the case of the Petitioner for receiving pension under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 and the Odisha GPF Rules was rejected.

¶38

While elaborating his argument further, the learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the judgment in the case of Ranjan Kumar Sahu as well as in Ananda Chandra Dash, submitted that in the aforesaid cases the recruitment process has commenced prior to the date on which the amendment Rule came into force, i.e. with effect from 01.01.2005. As such, while interpreting the law it has been held that in the event the recruitment process to fill up the vacancy has commenced prior to the appointed date i.e. on 01.01.2005 and the Petitioner was appointed thereafter such, then persons are to be covered under the amended OCS (Pension) Rules, 2005 as well as Old Provident Fund (Orissa) Rules, 1938. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the aforesaid aspect has not been taken into consideration while

¶39

Page 4 of 6.

¶40

rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. He further submitted that the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected by passing a speaking and reasoned order without analysing the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two judgments. As such, he contended that the rejection order is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.

¶41

Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the impugned rejection order dated 12.09.2024, under Annexure-6, is a speaking one. Further, he submitted that while rejecting the case of the Petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit under the Old Rule, 1992, the Opposite Party No.1 has taken into consideration the aforesaid two judgments. Moreover, since the Petitioner was admittedly appointed on 14.02.2005 i.e. after the appointed date i.e. on 01.01.2005 when the amended rule came into force, the case of the Petitioner has not been has not been considered by the Opposite Parties.

¶42

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on examination of the documents annexed to present writ petition, this Court prima facie observes that although the representation of the Petitioner has been disposed of on 12.09.2024 under Annexure-6 pursuant to the direction in the earlier Writ Petition, however the Opposite Parties have not applied the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar Sahu (supra). On a close scrutiny of the impugned rejection order dated 12.09.2024, this Court observes that the law laid down in the aforesaid two judgments has not been discussed elaborately and the principle has not been taken note of while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. Thus, this Court

¶43

Page 5 of 6.

¶44

has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the rejection order under Annexure-6 is not in consonance with the order passed earlier by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.09.2024 under Annexure-6 is hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded to Opposite Party no.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid two judgments of this Court, by keeping in view the fact that the recruitment process has already commenced by the time the amended Rule has come into force with effect from 01.01.2005. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the aforesaid two judgments and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 13.02.2023, under Annexure-5, by passing a speaking and reasoned order, after taking note of the principle laid down in the aforesaid two judgments, within a period of two months from the date of communication of certified copy of this order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

¶45

With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶46

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶47

( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge

¶48

RKS

¶49

Signature Not Verified Page 6 of 6.

¶50

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Apr-2025 16:34:29

P.Ramudu Reddy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramudu Reddy 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

Basanti Panda Vs State of Odisha

Babita Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Ramjit Kumar Hansda Vs State of Odisha

Malay Sasmal Vs Junior Engineer, Electrical, Rasulgarh Fulnakhara Sub-Division

Somanath Khamari Vs State of Odisha

Dharmendra Kar Vs State of Odisha