The strict application of pension rules should not overshadow equitable considerations; fractions of service years should count towards pension eligibility, ensuring just outcomes for employees.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, seeks a direction from this Court to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why appropriate writ/writs shall not be issued for quashing the order dated 17.03.2009, vide annexure-6. Additionally, he also prays for issuance of a writ of Mandamus against the Opp. Parties to grant the petitioner’s pension and pensionary benefits with interest by calculating the service period which he has worked prior to regularization.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. Shorn off unnecessary factual details, suffice it to narrate the facts as placed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition as follows:

i. The Petitioner was initially engaged as N.M.R. employee under the Odisha State Electricity Board in Rairangpur Construction Section. He highlights that there is no distinction between the work of the Petitioner as the N.M.R. employee and that of regular employees, citing strenuous and sensitive tasks. He further contends, despite fulfilling such duties effectively since 1986, disparities are highlighted in the gradation list dated 21.06.1986 wherein the petitioner’s name find place in Sl. No. 45, circulated by the Electricity Board vide Annexure-1.

ii. While he was working as such under Rairangpur Section, his service was regularized in the post of Line Helper with effect from 25.09.1995. Subsequently, he was promoted to the rank of Lineman ‘C’ on 27.11.2000 at Karanjia Section/ vide annexure-3.

iii. When the petitioner was working as Lineman ‘C’ at Karanjia Section, he was retired from the service, from 30.06.2005 after attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years applicable in case of Class-III employees pursuance of O.S.E.B./GRIDCO, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, Retirement Regulation 1979, vide annexure-4. Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from the service by the J.E., Electrical (NESCO, Karanjia) on 30.06.2005, vide annexure-5.

iv. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Opp. Parties to grant Signature Not Verhifiimed pension and pensionary benefits considering the time period Digitally Signed during which he had worked under the Opp. Parties. However, the Opp. Party No.1, informed the Executive Engineer, Rairangpur, vide its letter No.11768, dated 12.09.2006 that the petitioner is ineligible for pension due to the failure to complete 10 years of service, disregarding the period of service rendered by the petitioner before regularization.

v. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation to grant him pension and pensionary benefits. Nevertheless, the Opp. Party No. 1, vide letter dated 17.03.2009 rejected the abovementioned representation/ citing the petitioner’s initial role as Line Helper from 25.09.1995 and subsequent retirement as a Lineman (C) with effect from 30.06.2005, with a service period of 9 years 9 months and 6 days, falling short of pension eligibility criteria under the O.C.S. Pension Rules, 1992, wherein no pension is granted to employees who retired before completion of 10 years qualifying service. Furthermore, the rejection order, vide annexure-6, cited Sub-Rule- 47(5):

“(5) (i) In the case of a Government Servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completion of the minimum qualifying service of ten years shall not be entitled for pension, but he shall be entitled to service gratuity to be paid at a uniform rate of half month’s emoluments for every completed six monthly period of service.”

Accordingly, he highlighted that 9 months and 9 days service period could not be rounded up to one year, as per the Pension Signature Not Verified Rules. Hen