The main legal point established is that work charged employees, who meet certain criteria, are entitled to regularization and pensionary benefits as per relevant resolutions and previous court decisions.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Mohapatra, J. - The present application has been re-registered as WPC(OAC) No.864 of 2018 on transfer of O.A. No.864 of 2018 from the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Odisha, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack to this court after abolition of the OAT.

2. The Petitioner has filed the above noted application with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to bring the service of the Petitioner under regular establishment prior to his retirement on 30th April, 2017 and sanction the minimum pension in his favour along with other pensionary benefits and the arrear outstanding pensionary benefits along with interest within a stipulated period of time.

3. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the Petitioner had joined as N.M.R. on 2nd April, 1986. On 23rd September, 2009, the Petitioner was given appointment to the post of 'Khalasi' under work charged establishment instead of regular establishment. In course of his employment, the Petitioner had submitted several representations to the authorities to bring him over to the regular establishment but the grievance of the Petitioner remained unheard by the authorities till the date of his retirement on 30th April, 2017. The Petitioner has, therefore, stated that it is due to the sheer negligence and latches on the part of the authorities he was not given appointment in regular establishment. Since at the time of retirement, the service of the Petitioner was not regularized, he has been denied pensionary and other retiral benefits by his employer, which is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had requisite qualification for the post. Although there were existing vacancies at the time of Petitioner's appointment, but he was not given appointment in the regular establishment. Further, the Petitioner was appointed as N.M.R. on 2nd April, 1986 and vide Office Order No.3601 dated 23rd September, 2009 of the Office of the Superintendent Engineer, Angul Irrigation Circle, Angul, the petitioner was brought over to the work charged establishment with a scale of pay and grade pay of Rs.4,440-7,440 and G.P. Rs.1,300/-.

5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Water Resources Department, Government of Odisha vide letter dated 29th March, 2017 communicated to the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation (O), Bhubaneswar has mentioned that 63 persons were working as 'Khalasi' in the work charged establishment were brought over to regular establishment (Wages). However, the case of the Petitioner was ignored by the authority although he was eligible to be appointed in the regular establishment.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has worked under State Government since the year 1986 till his retirement in the year 2017 continuously and received salary with scale of pay, increment, grade pay and other service benefits. It is further submitted that the persons similarly situated had earlier approached the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal as well as this Court for regularization of their services and for payment of pensionary benefits have got the desired result. Some of the orders passed by this Court as well as learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal were carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India at the instance of the State Government. Hon'ble Supreme Court, while rejecting the State Government's appeal directed the State Government to prepare a scheme for regularization of service of such employees. Basing upon said direction, Government of Odisha in the Finance Department vide resolution No.22764 dated 15th May, 1997 prepared a scheme for regularization of such employees, who have continued in service on being appointed prior to 12th April 1993 and completed ten years of regular service and having requisite educational qualification for appointment to the post.

7. In support of his claim, the Petitioner has cited the instance of Housing and Urban D