Back
2024 Supreme(Ori) 477
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.PANIGRAHI, J.
Tribal Development Corporation of Odisha Limited and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The Registrar, Odisha Cooperative Society and ors. – Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.22035 of 2016
Decided On : 06-09-2024
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Retirement Benefits
Headnote
(B) Legal entitlement to retirement benefits - The Supreme Court's view established that pensions and gratuities are rights not mere bounties, emphasizing timely disbursement and the chargeability of interest on delays indicated by statutory provisions. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to challenge the Registrar's order instructing payment of retirement benefits to the opposite party for periods during which he served under different employment statuses—initially at TDCC and later at LAMPS. The opposing party contended the entitlement for benefits based on established service periods and previous Court findings dismissing the non-liability of TDCC.
Findings of Court:
Court found that the opposite party was entitled to pension and gratuity as he had met all conditions for benefits, and the petitioner unjustly delayed disbursement.
Issues: Core concerns were the legality and obligation of the petitioner towards the retirement benefits following opposite party no. 2's service transitions and the legitimacy of the Registrar's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that withholding retirement dues lacked any legal justification and asserted that public officials must act justly to avoid harming public servants entitled to their due benefits.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
For the Petitioners: Ms. Saday Laxmi Patnaik, Adv.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Adv.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of employment and retirement (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on legality and liability of retirement benefits (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on employment status and due benefits (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court reasoning on employee rights and obligations (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion dismissing the petition (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition to challenge the order dated 25.01.2014, issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which directed Petitioner No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3 to pay retirement benefits to Opposite Party No. 2 for the periods from 01.06.1973 to 30.06.1979 and from 01.07.1979 to 01.07.1984.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The petitioner no. 1 is the Tribal Development Corporation (TDCC) of Odisha Ltd., an undertaking of the State Government.
(ii) The opposite party no. 2 was initially appointed as a shop assistant in a Fair Price Shop by TDCC and was later absorbed by LAMPS (Large Area Multi-Purpose Cooperative Societies) as part of an integration policy effective from 01.07.1979.
(iii) The opposite party no. 2 was then relieved from service on 01.07.1984 by LAMPS. Despite being absorbed by LAMPS, opposite party no. 2 later attempted to rejoin TDCC, which was not accepted.
(iv) After reaching retirement age, opposite party no. 2 filed multiple writ petitions seeking various service and retirement benefits.
(v) The earlier Writ Petition W.P. (C) No. 1622 of 2012, was dismissed by this Court. A subsequent Writ Petition W.P. (C) No. 13288 of 2012 resulted in an order allowing opposite party no. 2 to file a representation for his gratuity and retirement benefits before the Registrar, Cooperative Society.
(vi) Based on the representation of the opposite party no. 2, the Registrar Cooperative Society issued the impugned order dated 25.01.2014 directing the payment of retirement benefits.
(vii) Aggrieved by the order of the Registrar, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition, challenging the order dated 25.01.2014 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, directing them (Petitioner No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 3) to pay retirement benefits to opposite party no. 2 for the period from 01.06.1973 to 30.06.1979 and from 01.07.1979 to 01.07.1984.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking and does not consider the materials on record, including the fact that opposite party no. 2 was absorbed by LAMPS and relieved from service.
(ii) He further submitted that the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies contradicts the previous decisions of this Court, which exonerated TDCC from any liabilities towards opposite party no. 2 after his absorption by LAMPS.
(iii) The petitioner contended that the relationship between TDCC and the opposite party no. 2 ceased after his absorption by LAMPS on 01.07.1979, and therefore, they are not responsible for any retirement benefits.
(iv) The petitioner acknowledged the delay in challenging the impugned order but requests the court to consider this delay in light of potential pecuniary loss to the government or its undertaking.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) It is submitted that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in law and should be dismissed in limine. The application involves disputed questions of fact, making it legally unsustainable.
(ii) It is asserted that there is no dispute regarding the service period from 01.06.1973 to 30.06.1979, during which opposite party No. 2 served under the administrative control of the petitioner. Therefore, the direction to pay admissible gratuity for this period cann
