Employees serving over ten years without unlawful intervention are entitled to pension benefits, even if prior appointments were irregular. Bureaucratic failure to regularize should not impede legal rights.

JUDGMENT :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner inter alia challenging order dt.30.03.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-12. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization and consequential sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits, as provided under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short, “1992 Rules”) was rejected.

2.1. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner entered into service as a Night Watchman on DLR basis, w.e.f 07.11.1989 in the establishment of Opp. Party No.2. Even though Petitioner on such engagement as a DLR Night Watchman w.e.f 07.11.1989 continued as such and on the face of such continuance, he was not regularized, Petitioner approached the State Administrative Tribunal in OA. No.100 of 1998 seeking regularisation of his service.

2.2. The Tribunal vide order dt.21.01.1998, when directed Opp. Party No.5 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization, Opp. Party No.5 vide his letter dt.20.08.1998 under Annexure-1, intimated the Petitioner that a Common Identified list of DLR workers, engaged prior to 12.04.1993 will be prepared and follow-up action will be taken in due course of time.

2.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that there is no dispute that Petitioner’s initial engagement as a DLR is prior to the cut-off date so fixed by the Finance Department in its Resolution dt.15.05.1997 i.e 12.04.1993 and while implementing the order passed by the Tribunal, Opp. Party No.5 vide letter under Annexure-1 contended that a Common Identified list of DLR workers will be prepared and from out of the said list follow-up action will be taken in due course of time. But in terms of the said letter, no action was ever taken to absorb the Petitioner in the regular establishment.

2.4. As per the stipulation contained in Finance Department Resolution dt.15.05.1997 and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Uma Devi & Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1, it is contended that by the time Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of the matter in the case of Uma Devi Petitioner had already completed 10(ten) years of engagement as a DLR without being protected by any interim order from any Court of law.

2.5. In view of the nature of order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.100 of 1998 and the decision in the case of Uma Devi, Petitioner should have been regularized in his services. However, in order to circumvent the decision in the case of Uma Devi and to deprive the Petitioner to get the benefit of regularization and consequential release of pension and pensionary benefits under the 1992 Rules, Petitioner was brought over to the Work Charged establishment vide Officer Order dt.15.01.2011 of Opp. Party No.5 under Annexure-2.

2.6. It is contended that since employees working in the Work Charged establishment are not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and pensionary benefits under the 1992 Rules, Petitioner on being so brought over to the Work Charged establishment, was deprived to get the said benefit.

2.7. It is further contended that basing on the communication issued by Opp. Party No.2 vide his letter dt.27.08.2018 under Annexure-3, Petitioner was brought over to the Regular/Wages establishment w.e.f 27.10.2018 vide Office order dt.14.11.2018 under Annexure-4. But since Petitioner retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2018, he was not sanctioned with pension and other pensionary benefits on the ground that he was not having the required qualifying service, as