Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Nabin Chandra Mandal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of rejection of regularization and pension. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counterarguments by the state regarding pension eligibility. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's reasoning regarding eligibility for pension. (Para 4) |
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.
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 ....
Long-term daily wage employees, after 10 years of service, are entitled to regularization as established by Supreme Court principles in employment law.
Continuous and uninterrupted service of temporary employees qualifies them for regularisation, as upheld by apex court judgments emphasizing fairness in employment practices.
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
Prolonged service of over ten years without legal hindrance can qualify employees for regularization, regardless of the initial nature of their appointments.
The court held that employees regularized despite not formally joining are still entitled to pensionary benefits, emphasizing fairness in public employment rights.
State delays in regularizing services do not justify withholding pension benefits for long-serving employees; equal treatment and fair engagement practices must be upheld.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
