The court affirmed that only the qualifying service period of Job Contractors is counted for pension eligibility, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action by the State.

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. In all these appeals which are before this Court, the State of Odisha has challenged the order of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court by which their Writ Appeals were dismissed due to inordinate delay in filing of Writ Appeals. Even this Court had earlier dismissed a few Special Leave Petitions on the same dispute, which were belatedly filed even before this Court. All the same, we are now examining the cases on its merits considering the importance of the matter(s). Nevertheless, the casual manner in which the State authorities, particularly the concerned department of the State and the Land Records office Surveys Office have handled the matters is a matter of concern.

3. It is not a case concerning a few employees, rather it affects a large number, and in turn, the State Exchequer. It is for this reason that we were persuaded to look into these matter(s), although initially, we were not inclined to interfere, considering the lethargic approach of the State in pursuing these matters, and the inordinate delay caused, which was never explained in any satisfactory manner. The State though kept filing one Special Leave Petition after another before this Court, not in one go but one after another, most of them belatedly, to complete a mere formality. For this reason, many of these petitions have been dismissed on the ground of delay itself as stated earlier, as Courts do not come to rescue those who sleep over their rights. Be it the State. The liability of the State on this issue will be addressed towards the end. Now, since we are taking up these matters, what will be the fate of the already dismissed petitions after our determination, we will address at the end.

4. In the State of Odisha, apart from regular employees who are working on sanctioned posts in various departments of the State, there are also a large number of employees, who were working as ‘Job Contractors’, who are mainly engaged for purposes of survey and preparation of maps and for the purposes of consolidation of land holdings etc. Their services were not pensionary services and thus even when they had put in long years of service as Job Contractors their services were not counted for pensionary benefits, and they were not given any pension post their retirement. The Rules which were applicable in the State of Odisha at the relevant point of time with which we are concerned are known as Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “Odisha Pension Rules, 1992”).

5. Then a case came up before the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, i.e. Settlement Class­IV Job Contract Employees Union, Balasore v. State of Orissa & Ors. (O.J.C No.2147/1991) (hereinafter “Job Contract Employees Union”), which was decided on 24.03.1992. The High Court considered the non­payment of pension to Job Contractors as an unfair practice and even violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Many of the Job Contractors were subsequently regularised in service but in most cases, this happened towards the end of their service where these employees had not completed the mandatory period of pensionable service which was 10 years. Hence, the Job Contractors though regularised in service before their retirement, were still not entitled for pension. The High Court in the said judgment said as under

“13. … This apart, for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefit, so much of their earlier service period shall be reckoned, even if there had been breaks in their employment, so as to make them eligible for pension. The necessity of giving this direction has been felt because, if service rendered after regularisation alone shall be counted for pensionary benefit, most of the present incumbents would be denied the same, because to earn pension, ten years minimum service is necessary, which most of the incumbents at hand would not put in after regularisation as they would retire before compl