Long-term service in a role beyond official designation can warrant entitlement to benefits under relevant service rules.

Order No.05

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Ms. S.S. Moharana, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging office order dtd.01.01.2018 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-2. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of the salary as applicable to the post of Driver was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though there is no dispute that Petitioner was appointed as a Peon, which is a Group-D post, but in course of his employment in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 2, he was allowed to drive the vehicle for the period from 13.05.1992 to 30.06.2018.

4.1. It is contended that since Petitioner in spite of his appointment as against a Group-D post, was allowed to drive the vehicle in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 2 for a period more than 24 years, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 74(b) of the Odisha Page 2 of 3. Service Code, he is entitled to get the benefit as due and admissible in terms of the said provision.

4.2. It is contended that the Tribunal when directed for consideration of the claim of the Petitioner vide order dtd.02.12.2016 in O.A. No. 4528(C) of 2016, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-2. It is also contended that Opp. Parties while rejecting such claim also admitted that Petitioner was entrusted to drive the vehicle.

5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that since the Petitioner was illegally allowed to drive the vehicle, a proceeding was initiated against him on 30.12.1996 under Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. The said proceeding was disposed of vide order dtd.06.10.2004 under Annexure-C/2 to the counter inter alia by imposing the punishment of censure.

5.1. It is contended that since the Petitioner without having the required driving license, drove the vehicle and in the proceeding initiated against him he was censured, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit as claimed in the present writ petition.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the Petitioner though was appointed as against a Group-D post, but w.e.f.13.05.1992 he was allowed to drive the vehicle in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 2 till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018. Since the Petitioner was allowed to drive the vehicle, which is not disputed, this Court placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule 74(b) of the Odisha Service Code is of the opinion that Petitioner’s claim requires consideration in terms of the said provision.

6.1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the office order dtd.01.01.2018 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-2. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the provisions contained under Rule 74(b) of the Odisha Service Code . This Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to pass a fresh order as directed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. On such reconsideration if it is found that Petitioner is otherwise eligible to get benefit as claimed, consequential follow up action shall also be taken within the aforesaid time period.

7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.