Service period as a Non-Formal Facilitator should be considered for counting the qualifying service period for pension, and a shortage period of service can be rounded off for granting benefits.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction from this Court to the opposite parties to sanction and grant pensionary benefits and other retiral benefits i.e. gratuity, leave salary to him taking into account his Non-Formal period of service as qualifying service.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Non-Formal Facilitator vide order dated 17.02.1982 of the District Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur and he is continuing as such and discharging his duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. The petitioner while continuing as such, as per the Scheme/circular issued by the State Government to absorb all Non Formal Facilitators having three years of service and having C.T. qualification as regular Primary School Teachers, the petitioner accordingly was absorbed as regular Primary School Teacher by virtue of order dated 19.07.1997 issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 19.07.1997 of the District Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur, the Block Development Officer, Jagatisnghpur vide his office order No.1913 dated 26.7.1997 issued appointment order in favour of the petitioner.

4. Pursuant to the said order of appointment, he joined as an Assistant Teacher on 24.07.1997 which is evident from the relevant pages of the Service Book. However, while the petitioner was serving as Assistant Teacher, his services were terminated abruptly with effect from 30.11.2006 vide order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jagatsinghpur. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 30.11.2006 by filing an O.A. No.2764 (C) of 2006 before the State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for brevity). The Tribunal vide order dated 14.12.2006 passed in batch of cases including the O.A. No.2764(C) of 2006 filed by the petitioner and stayed order of termination dated 30.11.2006 and directed to restore of status of the petitioners therein as on 30.11.2006. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.12.2006 passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid batch of cases is as follows:

“In the meantime, the order of termination dated 30.11.2006 is stayed until 18.11.2007 and the applicant be restored back to the status as on 30.11.2006 and if the post is already occupied, then she be shown against supernumerary post created specifically for this purpose in compliance of the orders of the Tribunal. The opposite parties would also be competent to relocate the vacancies wherever they can to adjust those persons whose service have been terminated by the order dated 30.11.2006. We also clarify that no one who is recruited in pursuance of the recruitment process initiated in March, 1996 will in any manner be affected by the location of the vacancies for the applicants i.e. NFE Instructors/ Supervisors. Any direct recruit of NFE Instructor/Supervisor who does not conform to the qualification prescribed would not be covered by these orders.”

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 14.12.2006 passed in 0.A. No.2764 (C) of 2006, the petitioner was reinstated in service and he was allowed to retire from service with effect from 31.05.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner was allowed to retire from service with effect from 31.05.2007, he was not provided with pension and other retiral benefits on the ground that he has not completed 10 years of qualifying service as a Primary School Teacher. It was further submitted that admittedly the petitioner had rendered 9 years and 10 months of service as a regular Primary School Teacher for which he has not been granted pension.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the petitioner has rendered 14 years of service as a Non-Formal Facilitator a