The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation of the statutory provision under sub-rule (6) of Rule 18 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, and the court's direction for the Government to consider relaxing the provision to grant relief to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The sole point that arises for consideration in this case is whether a job contract worker, whose services have been brought over to the regular establishment, is entitled to pension by taking into account the entire period of service rendered by him in the job contract establishment.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as General Mohorior Grade-I in job contract establishment under the control of Deputy Director, Consolidation, Berhampur (opposite party no. 4) on 27.09.1997. After rendering service for 28 years 6 months and 7 days as such he was brought over to the regular establishment on 04.04.2006 and appointed as Junior Clerk in the office of Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar. The petitioner retired from Government Service on 31.05.2012 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Though he was granted provisional pension, the same was calculated considering the period of service in the regular establishment only, i.e. from 04.04.2006 till 31.05.2012. His entire service in the job contract establishment was not taken into consideration. Challenging such erroneous calculation of pension, the petitioner had filed the O.A. before the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal which, on transfer is registered as the present writ petition, seeking direction to the opposite parties to count the past service rendered in the job contract establishment for 28 years 6 months and 6 days as qualifying service along with other pensionary benefits and gratuity.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 1, wherein reference has been made to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered on 24.03.1992 in OJC No. 2147 of 1991, wherein it was held that in order to calculate the pensionary benefit of such employees, so much of their earlier service period shall be reckoned so as to make them eligible for pension. Further reference has been made to another judgment rendered by another Division Bench of this Court on 07.02.2019 in W.P. (C) No. 11503 of 2003, wherein the principle laid down in the aforesaid earlier judgment was reiterated.

Some other judgments of the erstwhile Odisha Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 390 (C)/2008 and batch, O.A. No. 174(C) of 2006 and O.A. No. 1828/2004 and batch have been referred to. It is also stated that the relief sought for by the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Separate counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 5 referring to the Finance Department Memorandum No. 49296 dated 12.12.1997 to justify the action of adding only four years of service of the petitioner under the job contract establishment to six years of regular service rendered by him to make him eligible to get minimum pension.

4. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner in response to the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no. 1. In the said rejoinder, the petitioner has referred to the order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal passed on 21.10.1994 in T.A. No. 11 of 1993, wherein the concerned authority was directed to count the past service rendered in job contract establishment towards pension and pensionary benefits. The said judgment was challenged before the apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 13916 of 1995 by the State but the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.07.1995. It is therefore, stated that the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the year 1992 no longer holds good. The petitioner has also referred to an order of the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 3020(C) of 2003 passed on 04.01.2004, wherein similar direction was issued. The said order was challenged by the State before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 14244 of 2006, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.04.2014. The state further challenged the said order before the Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) CC No. 12573 of 2015 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 13.07.2015 on merit as well as on the ground of limitation. It is s