The court held that employees regularized despite not formally joining are still entitled to pensionary benefits, emphasizing fairness in public employment rights.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and Mr. S.K. Patra, learned cousnel appearing for Opp. Party No.4.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: -

“It is therefore prayed under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble Court Your Lordships may kindly be graciously pleased to issue the notice of show cause asking the opp. parties as to why the prayer of the petitioner to quash/set-aside the order of rejection dtd.05/08/2022 (Annexure-1) passed by the opp. party no-2 shall not be allowed.

And this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the opp. parties to pay the pensionary benefits of the petitioner w.e.f 14/03/1991 as per the Rule 18(3) of the Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules in consonance to the order of the Hon'ble Court passed in the earlier writ application in W.P.C(OAC) No- 875/2010 vide order dtd- 11.04.2022.

And, if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show any insufficient cause your lordship may kindly be graciously pleased enough issue the writ in the nature of mandamus or pass any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions so as to grant the just and proper relief to the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner while continuing in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3, he was regularized as a Khalasi in the Regular (Wages) Establishment w.e.f. 14.03.1991 vide office order dated 15.11.1999.

3.1. It is contended that such regularization of the petitioner in the regular (wages) establishment w.e.f. 14.03.1991, was reflected in the service book of the petitioner, so available under Annexure-3. It is contended that even though petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 14.03.1991 vide order dated 15.11.1999 and he continued as such till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2003, but after his retirement when petitioner was not extended with the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible in terms of the provisions contained under OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 on the ground that petitioner has not joined in the regular post, petitioner raised his grievance by approaching the Tribunal in O.A. No.775(C) of 2010.

3.2. The said Original Application after being transferred to this Court, was disposed of vide order dated 11.04.2022 and with a direction on the Opp. Parties to consider the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of Pension and other Pensionary benefits. However, without proper appreciation of the petitioner’s claim and the order passed by this Court, such claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated 05.08.2022 under Annexure-1.

3.3. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since an entry was made in the service book that petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 14.03.1991 vide office order dated 15.11.1999, it cannot be held that petitioner never joined in the regular (wages) establishment w.e.f. 14.03.1991, in terms of the order dated 15.11.1999.

3.4. It is also contended that after 15.11.1999, petitioner was allowed increments as due and admissible all through and so also revised scale of pay as a regular employee. Therefore, the ground on which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-1, is not sustainable in the eye of law.

4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. Though it is