The non-obstante clause in Rule-3(A) of the Pension Rules, 1981 overrides other provisions, making appointees after 01.01.2005 ineligible for pension under the rule.

JUDGMENT :

Pramath Patnaik, J.

1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of the order dated 31.08.2009 under Annexure-8 and has prayed for direction to the opposite parties to bring the deceased-petitioner into the fold of Pension Rules, 1981 and to allot a GPF account number and deduct GPF instead of CPF from his salary and to grant of consequential benefits under the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees Retirement Benefit Rules, 1981 (in short, 'Pension Rules, 1981') and to his family and count his entire service towards service continuity from the initial date of joining.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner-Sweta Kumar Nayak died in harness leaving behind the widow and three sons and the legal heirs have been substituted as petitioners in the case.

2. The brief facts as revealed from the writ application are that the deceased-petitioner was initially appointed as a Peon in Ramachandi Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Mundalo, an aided Educational Institution in the year 1987. The Ramachandi Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Mundalo in the district of Kendrapara was established with Prathama Classes in the year 1972 and subsequently Madhyama classes were opened with Government concurrence from the sessions 1989-90. The Madhyama wing comes into grant in aid fold w.e.f. dated 01.06.1994. It is an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act (as it has amended from time to time). Upon opening of the Madhyama wing in the institution the Management of the School appointed the petitioner as a peon vide order dated 10.08.1987. He joined the post on dated 12.08.1987. Since then he has been continuing and discharging his duties in the school. The staff members appointed against Madhyama wing of this school were approved by order dated 27.4.1994 of the opposite party No. 4 vide office order dated 27.04.1994. All these teaching staff have got their salary from out of grant in aid from dated 01.06.1994. But the petitioner's appointment was not approved on the plea that there is no post of Peon available in the yardstick In many aided Sanskrit Tols throughout the State and the provisions of Odisha Education Act and the Rules framed there under are made applicable to the Sanskrit Tols, the post of Peon could have been made available to the Madhyama Tols which are equivalent to High Schools. Be that as it may some similarly situated persons have filed writ petitions before this Hon'ble Curt which were disposed of with a direction to the Government to take a decision with regard to creation of the posts of Peon in the Sanskrit Tols The State Government has taken the decision in letter dated 15.12.2008 creating one post of Peon (Class-IV) in each Sanskrit Tols having Madhyama wing as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Government vide letter dated 20.01.2012 passed an order sanctioning the post of peon in favour of the petitioner's Institution and the said post was created with the name of the deceased-petitioner as per Annexure-4. In pursuance of the order dated 31.07.2012 approved the appointment of the petitioner and released grant in aid in his favour under direct payment scheme of the government with the prescribed scale of pay as per Annexure-5. Vide order dated 20.01.2016 the deceased-petitioner has received a CPF account number in the GIS scheme instead of GPF account number. Being aggrieved by such action of the Government, the petitioner has approached the authority and the Government vide letter dated 31.08.2009 took a decision clarifying the approval of the post of peon appointed in 15 Prathama/Madhyma Aided Sanskrit Tols. Challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 31.08.2009, the deceased-petitioner was constrained to approach this Court under Articles, 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.

3. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners has forcefu