Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
A.K. Mohapatra, J.
Sarat Chandra Misha - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 1333 of 2022
Decided On : 30-05-2024
REGULARIZATION - SERVICE BENEFITS - Finance Department Resolution dated 22.01.1965, Finance Department Resolution dated 15.05.1997, O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992 - The court discussed the applicability of the Finance Department Resolutions regarding the regularization of work charged employees and the conditions under which such regularization should occur. It emphasized that employees who have served continuously for five years should be absorbed into regular positions, and the denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioner was found to be contrary to established legal principles. The court's decision was influenced by the need to uphold the rights of long-serving employees and the principles of fairness and justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who had been working as a work charged employee since 1993 after starting as an NMR in 1981, sought regularization of his service and pensionary benefits upon retirement. Despite working for decades and the existence of vacant posts, his request was denied by the government, leading to the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to regularization based on the Finance Department Resolutions and previous court rulings. It held that the government could not deny regularization after decades of service and that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of being absorbed into the regular establishment.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization in service and pensionary benefits after retirement, given his long tenure and the existence of vacant posts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that work charged employees who have served continuously for five years are entitled to regularization and that the government cannot raise objections regarding the irregularity of appointment after decades of service. The principles of fairness and the right to life under the Constitution were emphasized.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order denying regularization and directed the government to regularize the petitioner's service prior to his retirement, ensuring he receives his retirement benefits and pension within three months.
JUDGMENT
A.K. Mohapatra, J.
By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner calls in question the validity, legality and propriety of Office order dated 09.12.2021 under Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The Petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus thereby directing the Opposite Parties, particularly the Opposite Party No.2, to immediately regularize the service of the Petitioner from the date prior to his date of retirement w.e.f. 31.01.2022 by taking into consideration the policy decision of the Government vide Resolution dated 22.01.1965 under Annexure-9 and Resolution dated 15.05.1997 under Annexure-2 and letter dated 27.05.2014 under Annexure-3. Further, keeping in view the vacancy position, obtained by the Petitioner on an application under the Right to Information Act, which was intimated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 22.09.2020 under Annexure-5, so also the Resolutions of the Government in respect of the Regular Wage Establishment, regularize the Petitioner in service at least for a day prior to the date of his retirement and, accordingly, the pensionary benefits, as is due and admissible to the Petitioner, be sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time.
2. The factual background of the case leading to filing of the present writ petition, bereft of an unnecessary details, is that the Petitioner joined as an NMR in the office of the Executive Engineer, Stores & Mechanical Division, Samal in the year 1981. Thereafter he was transferred to Head Works Division, Samal where he was ultimately posted and worked in the said division. While working as such, the Petitioner was brought over to the work charged establishment on 02.09.1993 and, accordingly, the Petitioner joined in the post of Store Assistant. While continuing as a Store Assistant, the post of Store Assistant was re-designated as Store Clerk w.e.f. 25.03.2009. Since the Petitioner was working under the Government, a regular service book was opened in favour of the Petitioner, indicating therein the date of his entry into the work charged establishment under Annexure-1 to the writ petition, i.e. from 02.09.1993.
3. While working in the Government establishment as a work charged employee, the Petitioner was extended with all service benefits at par with the regular employee including the benefit of differential pay revision. The Petitioner was also granted with the benefit of 7th Pay Revision as per Finance Department Resolution dated 07.09.2017 w.e.f. 01.01.2016. However, the Petitioner has been denied the regular pensionary benefit in accordance with Rule-18 of the O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992.
4. Since the service of the Petitioner and similarly situated many other persons, who were working in the work charged establishment continuously for several decades, were not being regularized, some of such persons approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. Nos.1553(C)/1993, 1560(C)/1993, 1562(C)/1993, 1570(C)/1993, 1651(C)/1993 and 1781(C)/1993. The OAT after hearing the learned counsels of the respective parties by a common judgment dated 02.06.1995 directed the Opposite Parties to bring the aforesaid persons over to the work charged establishment w.e.f. 02.09.1993. The aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State-Opposite Parties by filing SLP(C) No.5526-31/1996. In course of hearing of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Opposite Parties brought on record the resolution of the Government dated 15.05.1997 wherein a scheme has been formulated by the State-Opposite Parties for absorption of Work Charged/NMR/DLR/Job Contract employees in the regular establishment in order of seniority and subject to availability of posts. On the basis of such affidavit, the Hon'ble Supreme Court sought for clarification from the State Government. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the above noted SLP vide order dated 26.03.1999
The court does not have the power to direct regularization and/or absorption in service unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. The petitioner fail....
The court affirmed that the principle of equal treatment in public employment must be upheld, requiring regularization for long-serving employees despite technical non-compliance with bureaucratic cr....
The court established that eligibility for regularization and pensionary benefits must be determined based on the criteria set forth in applicable regulations, and that such benefits cannot be claime....
The entitlement to pensionary benefits for long-serving employees, even if initially appointed on a temporary basis, and the obligation of the State to provide minimum benefits for dedicated service.
The duty of the state as an employer to provide pension to employees with long service, and the entitlement of employees to pension after serving for a substantial period.
The right to regularization and pensionary benefits for Work-Charged employees is governed by specific eligibility criteria, and failure to meet these criteria precludes entitlement to such benefits.
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
