Service continuity on ad hoc basis qualifies for pension and provident fund benefits despite regulatory amendments, emphasizing the need for equity in service recognition.

Judgment :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P. Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to :

(a) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to Show Cause as to why the services of the Petitioner shall not be included in the pensionable establishment under the of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, and as to why the deduction of the General Provident Fund amount under the provisions of General Provident Fund (Odisha) Rules, 1938 shall not be made from his date of joining;

(b) If the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, a Writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Opposite Parties for inclusion of the services of the Petitioner in the pensionable establishment under the provisions of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, and the General Provident Fund amount under the provisions of the General Provident Fund (Odisha) Rules, 1938 be deducted from his date of joining within a stipulated time;

(c) Quash/Set-Aside that the impugned Order dated 26-10-2021 (under Annexure-1) issued by Opposite Party No.2-Director, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Odisha;

(d) Direct the Opposite Parties to enroll the Petitioner in the General Provident Fund Scheme of the Government of Odisha at par with similarly situated Government Servants by counting his past service from the initial date of his appointment i.e. 14- 01-1993;

(e) Direct the Opposite Parties to allow all consequential benefits of service at par with other Government Servants from the initial date of appointment of the Petitioner;

(f) The Opposite Parties be directed to grant all service benefits in favour of the Petitioner from the Petitioner from the date of his initial appointment 14-01-1993 (Annexure-4) and to release his annual increments and pay revisions and accordingly refix his pay from the date of appointment 14-01-1993 (Annexure-4) and release all arrears accordingly.”

(g) Pass such other Writ(s)/Order(s) and/or Direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after due creation of post of Asst. Operator under the State plan vide letter dated 20.01.1992 under Annexure-2 and by following due procedure of law, petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Operator on adhoc basis against reserved vacancy meant for ST candidates, for a period of 44 days, vide order dated 14.01.1993 under Annexure-4.

3.1. It is contended that even though petitioner was so appointed on adhoc basis against ST vacancy of 44 days basis with one day artificial break, but he was allowed to continue without any break in service all through, till he was regularized vide order dated 13.11.2015 under Annexure-10 but w.e.f. 17.09.2013.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 17.09.2013 vide order dated 13.11.2015 under Annexure-10 and he was not extended with the benefit of contribution under GPF Scheme and so also his coverage under the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short “Rules, 1992”), he made several applications claiming extension of the said benefit in his favour.

3.3. Ultimately, his application under Annexure-13, when was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.273 of 2021. This Court vide order dated 15.01.2021, when directed for consid