Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Krushna Chandra Jena – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 6122 of 2021 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Decided On : 26-08-2022
Pension Qualification - Service Tenure - Orissa University First Statute 1990, Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1992 - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's representation for pension, as the petitioner's tenure in University Law College did not qualify as full-time regular service under the relevant statutes. The court relied on precedents to emphasize the requirement of completing a minimum qualifying service of 10 years for pension eligibility.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired professor, sought pension benefits from Sambalpur University. Despite serving for over 22 years in various educational institutions, the petitioner's representation for pension was rejected by the university.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's tenure in University Law College did not qualify as full-time regular service, and thus did not meet the minimum qualifying service of 10 years for pension eligibility. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's representation for pension.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's tenure in University Law College qualified as full-time regular service for pension eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of completing a minimum qualifying service of 10 years for pension eligibility, as per the relevant statutes and precedents.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's representation for pension, as the petitioner's tenure in University Law College did not qualify as full-time regular service under the relevant statutes.
JUDGMENT
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. - The Petitioner through this writ petition seeks to challenge the rejection of his representation dated 15.09.2020 vide order No.3846/Est-III dated 19.11.2020 by the Opposite Party No.3/ Registrar, Sambalpur University, Sambalpur, without citing any proper and reasonable grounds and without going through the materials placed before it. The woes of the Petitioner has been long and weary after his retirement from service.
Factual matrix of the case:
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual matrix of the case in brief, is that the Petitioner on the basis of an open advertisement published by Sambalpur University and after facing a rigorous recruitment process conducted by the University he was selected for the post of Principal in which he served from 22.12.2004 to 11.05.2009. Subsequently, while continuing as such, again pursuant to another open advertisement published by the University for the post of Professor of Law and he was fulfilling the terms and conditions of the advertisement and other eligibility criteria as laid down in the said advertisement, he was selected to the said post in which he joined on 12.05.2009 and continued up to 30.06.2013 i.e. till the date of his superannuation.
Therefore, the Petitioner has served for a total period of 8 years, 6 months and 9 days in Sambalpur University. Prior to joining in Sambalpur University, the Petitioner had served in affiliated law colleges under Utkal University and University Law College, Utkal University with effect from 05.07.1982 till 21.12.2004 i.e. for a total period of 22 years 5 months and 15 days.
3. Thereafter, the Petitioner was about to retire from the Sambalpur University he made early request to the Opposite Parties for grant of pension for the post retirement livelihood. However, the petitioner did not receive any response to his request. Subsequently, from 02.04.2013 to 17.07.2015 numerous correspondences done between the Petitioner and Opposite Parties wherein the Petitioner made further requests/representations to the Opposite Parties to sanction pensionary benefits as soon as possible. Further, he also requested to refer his case to the Chancellor giving detailed information for consideration of his case by the said authority. Frequent correspondences have also happened within the department of the Opposite Parties.
4. Thereafter, vide the Office Orders contained in letter no. 647 dated 23.06.2015 followed by letter No.UIV- 09/2015/803/SG(HE) dated 05.08.2015 issued by the Special Secretary to the Chancellor, inter alia, rejected the representation of the Petitioner for sanction and payment of pension in his favour on the ground that the same is not permissible in terms of Clause 260(c) of Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990. Moreover, the Registrar, Sambalpur University vide its letter dated 27.05.2014 addressed to the Addl. Secretary to the Chancellor asserted that the past service rendered by the Petitioner in unaided but affiliated law colleges does not appear to be admissible as qualifying service under clause 260 of Statutes 1990 and Rule 32 of OCS Pension Rule, 1992. The cumulative service rendered by him in Utkal University and in Sambalpur University which does not exceed 10 years as contemplated under OCS(Pension) Rules and Clause 260 of Statutes 1990 for which the Petitioner cannot be entitled to pension.
5. Subsequently, the Petitioner being aggrieved by the arbitrary actions of the Opposite Parties vide letters dated 23.06.2015, 05.08.2015 and order dated 27.05.2014, he approached this Court in WP(C) No.19656 of 2015 in the matter of Dr. Krushna Chandra Jena vs. State of Orissa and Ors, WP(C) 19656 of 2015. This Court after hearing arguments from both the sides and perusing the documents placed on record, rendered a judgment on 14.10.2019 wherein it was observed that there was a requirement of reconsideration of the case of the Petitioner for pension by the competent authority as the Petitioner at the time
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of completing a minimum qualifying service of 10 years for pension eligibility, as per the relevant statutes and precedents.
prohibits State Government from interfering with the internal administration of the University in absence of any provision made in the Act itself the decision of the University itself that they will ....
Existing pension at the rate of Central University be stopped - petitioner had been substantively appointed in the post of the Registrar of Tripura University. Hence, the service rendered by the peti....
The liability to pay the pension and other benefits payable under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 would be that of the State Government and not the University o....
Past temporary services of employees must be considered for pension calculation under the Bihar Pension Rules, ensuring fair treatment and preventing undue hardship.
A government servant's continuous service, including temporary appointments and condoned breaks, qualifies for pension benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, provided there is....
Eligibility for pension benefits requires continuous service without voluntary breaks; prior service in different institutions does not automatically qualify unless condoned.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
