The court ruled that work charged employees, having served continuously in similar positions, are entitled to pension benefits despite not being parties in previous relevant cases, ensuring equitable treatment under the law.

ORDER :

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. N. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.10.01.2023 so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-4. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits on his regularization in service was rejected.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a Khalasi in the work charged establishment on 02.02.1974. Subsequently, Petitioner was promoted to the post of Dozer Operator Grade-III in the work charged establishment and while continuing as such, he retired on

31.01.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation.

4.1. It is contended that even though prior to his superannuation on 31.01.2014 Petitioner had moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.

1443 of 2013 seeking regularization of his services, but the said Original Application remained pending with the Tribunal without passing of any direction. After closure of the Tribunal and the matter on being transferred to this Court, W.P.C.(OA) No. 1443 of 2013 was disposed of vide order dtd.06.09.2022 under Annexure-3 inter alia directing Opp. Party No. 1 to consider the Petitioner’s claim in the light of the order passed by this Court in the case of Chandra Nandi vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 19950 of 2011 decided on 03.02.2021) & Premananda Tripathy vs. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No. 27950 of 2019 decided on 03.02.2021) as well as the ratio decided in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. Vs.

Jyostna Rani Pattanaik & Anr. (W.P.(C) No. 1534 of 2008).

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner continued in the work charged establishment all through w.e.f.02.02.1974 to 31.01.2014, his claim is not only covered by the order passed in the case of Chandra Nandi but also similar claim allowed by the Tribunal in the case of Narusu Pradhan vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (O.A. No. 1189(C)/2006), further confirmed by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. It is also contended that the order passed in the case of Narusu Pradhan as cited supra in the meantime has already been implemented by the State.

4.3. It is contended that even though claim of the Petitioner is covered by the claim in the case of Chandra Nandi and Premananda Tripathy as cited supra, but only on the ground that Petitioner is not a Party to the said proceeding, claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.10.01.2023 under Annexure-4. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party Nos.1 to 4. It is contended that even though Petitioner continued all through in the work charged establishment, but since he was never absorbed in the regular establishment prior to his retirement on 31.01.2014, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of absorption in the regular establishment and consequential sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits. It is also contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition on 06.09.2020, Petitioner’s claim was duly considered and since it was found that Petitioner was not a Party to the proceeding in the case of Chandra Nandi or Premananda Tripathy, it was held that Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit so allowed in favour of Chandra Nandi & Premananda Tripathy Stand taken in Para 11 & 15 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-

“11. That, the present petitioner has not been invol