SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ori) 493

ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
B.R.SARANGI, MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, JJ.
Swetapadma Samal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opp. Parties
W.P(C) no. 26508 of 2017
Decided On : 22-09-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Budhadev Routray, Sr. Advocate along with M/s. S. Das, R.P. Dalai, K. Mohanty, S.K. Samal and S.D. Routray, Adv.
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. A.K. Mishra, Addl. Government Advocate

Employees appointed before the introduction of new pension rules cannot be denied benefits retroactively, as their rights accrue from the date of initial appointment, affirming principles of equality before the law.

Headnote:(A) Odisha Junior Engineers’ Cadre (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1972 - OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 - GPF (Odisha) Rules, 1938 - Writ petition filed to quash order of Odisha Administrative Tribunal regarding pension benefits for a Junior Engineer appointed on contractual basis prior to 01.01.2005 who was regularized thereafter. The Tribunal remitted the matter for re-examination of applicability of a circular denying pension benefits under the OCS Pension Rules. The court found that since the petitioner was appointed against a substantive vacancy prior to the amendment rules, her services should be recognized for pension benefits under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. (Paras 26, 27)

(B) Employment - Rights - The principle that rights accrued during employment cannot be retroactively negated by new policies; once regularized, the petitioner is entitled to benefits under the rules that governed her initial contract period. (Para 10)

(C) Judiciary - The role of judicial oversight in ensuring that administrative policies do not violate established rights and principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Paras 11, 27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as Junior Engineer on 07.07.2003 on a contractual basis, challenged the denial of pension benefits under the OCS (Pension) Rules after her regularization post six years of service. The Tribunal failed to extend benefits, leading to this writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The earlier circular negating rights under the pension rules was arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner must be brought under the OCS (Pension) Rules from her initial appointment date.

Issues: Whether the petitioner, appointed contractually before 01.01.2005 and regularized post that date, is entitled to benefits under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.

Ratio Decidendi: Employment rights accrued must be honored despite changes in governing rules; the petitioner’s absence of recognition due to her contractual status was unjust and violated constitutional equality principles.

Result: Writ petition allowed, directing pension benefits to be applied from the date of initial appointment.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the appointment and rules governing junior engineers (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments for entitlement under pension rules (Para 3)
3. government's stance on contractual employment and pension benefits (Para 4)
4. court's analysis of accrued rights under pension rules (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 , 25 , 26)
5. court's reasoning on retrospective application of pension rules (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. final order directing compliance with pension rules (Para 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, who was appointed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) on contractual basis and subsequently whose services were regularised after completion of six years, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 3422 (C) of 2012, wherein, instead of extending the benefit as prayed for by the petitioner in the Original Application, direction has been given to the opposite parties to examine with regard to applicability of the circular dated 04.04.2007 in the case of the petitioner, which was exclusively applicable to job contract and work charged employees. The petitioner has further prayed to direct the opposite parties to extend the benefit by treating the period of her service from the date of her initial engagement against a substantive vacancy of Junior Engineer and bring her to the fold of the Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992 and General Provident Fund (Odisha) Rules, 1938 and grant all consequential benefits, as due and admissible to her, in accordance with law.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the Government of Odisha in the Department of Planning and Coordination issued a circular, vide memo no. 684 (64) dated 18.01.1972, to all Departments of Government/Heads of the Department that Government have been pleased to direct to follow the procedure to be adopted with immediate effect until further orders in absorbing Engineering Personnel in various posts lying vacant in each departments. It was further instructed that employment of Engineering Personnel, i.e., Graduate Engineer and Diploma Engineer should be made year-wise in order of merit. All candidates of particular year have to be absorbed first before candidates of the following years are considered. The Planning and Coordination Department will continue to maintain register of these candidates and on receipt of requisitions for filling up of posts under various departments, the Planning and Coordination Department should recommend the names of the candidates as many as four times of the vacancies. Recruitment to all posts, i.e., Junior Engineer, Sub-Assistant Engineer, Surveyor, Tracer, Draftsman, Embankment Inspector and Work Sarkar has to be made through those departments as was being made earlier.

2.1. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Odisha for the regulation of recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed as Junior Engineers made the rules, namely, the “Odisha Junior Engineers’ Cadre (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1972”, hereinafter to be referred as “1972 Rules”. Rule 5 thereof deals with method of recruitment. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 states that there shall be a committee comprising of the Chief Engineers, Roads and Buildings, Irrigation, Electricity, Public Health and Rural Engineering Organisation, the Director of Lift Irrigation and Additional Chief Engineer (Mechanical), and the Chairmanship of the Committee shall be determined according to the cadre to which recruitment is to be made. Rule-6 deals with condition of eligibility; Rule-7 deals with disqualifications; Rule 8 deals with the admission to the examination; Rule 9 deals with conduct of the selection; Rule 10 prescribes preparation and publication of the list by the Committee; Rule 11 prescribes for filling up of vacancies; Rule 14 deals with p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top