AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Krishna S. Dixit, J
This intra-court Appeal filed by the State & its officials seeks to lay challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 20.05.2024, whereby Respondents’ W.P.(C) No.12768 of 2024 having been favoured, the following direction has been given:
“9. Taking into consideration the factual background of the case and keeping in view the position of law as has been analysed hereinabove, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-10 within two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner. Further, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to consider the representation of the Petitioner in terms of the analysis made hereinabove as well as in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Pradip Kumar Panigrahi’ case (supra) and the representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within the aforesaid time stipulation. In the event it is found by the Opposite Party No.1 that the Petitioner’s case is similar to that of Pradip Kumar Panigrahi’ case (supra) and in the absence of any legal impediment, the Opposite Party No.1 shall do well to sanction and grant the pensionary benefits in favour of the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of taking such decision as has been directed hereinabove. The final decision so taken on such representation shall be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision.”
Learned AGA appearing for the Appellants vehemently urges the following grounds for invalidation of the impugned order:
(a) Learned Single Judge grossly erred in allowing the writ petition at the Admission Stage without giving an opportunity of filing the Counter and resisting the same thereafter; thus the impugned order is made sans due opportunity of hearing and therefore, the same being in violation of principles of natural justice, is liable to be set at naught.
(b) Learned Single Judge could not have allowed the writ petition without adverting to Rule 3 read with Rule 18(3) of Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, which disentitles persons in casual employment or work-charged establishment and therefore, the impugned order has an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court for setting the same at naught.
(c) The casual employment in work-charged establishment is governed by 1974 Executive Instructions and therefore, no such employee can claim any benefit under the provisions of 1992 Rules, which aspect has not been dealt with even in WP(C) No. 38771 of 2020 between Pradip Kumar Panigrahi v. State of Odisha disposed off by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.02.2021.
Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. M.K. Mishra representing the Respondents resists the appeal refuting the submissions made on behalf of the State. He adds that Respondents have put in more than three decades of continuous service, be it in casual employment or work-charged establishment; all similarly circumstanced employees, having been regularized, have been granted terminal benefits like pension under the 1992 Rules; countenancing contention of the State that no pension is payable to his clients under the said Rules virtually amounts to creating a class within the class, which falls foul of the ratio in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130; the Appellants being State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, ought to have conducted themselves as a Model Employer and therefore, on their own they ought to have extended terminal benefits to the Respondents, without driving them to this legal battle, consistent with State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747; lastly, all the contentions urged by the Appellants are subsumed in Panigrahi supra and therefore, what happened to the said case should happen to this appeal as well.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submissions made on behalf of Respondents, with some observations as under:
4.1. The first contention of learned AGA that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition at the admission stage without giving due opportunity of participation by filing Counter, is difficult to countenance. Firstly, no contention of the kind can be taken without a specific averment to that effect. What is averred in Ground (B) in the Memorandum of Appeal does not satisfy this requirement, although we cannot brand it as evasive. Secondly, all the contentions urged before us in support of the Appeal were urged before the learned Single Judge, who treated them in his wisdom, although not to the satisfaction of Appellants. It is not a case of denying due opportunity of participation in the proceedings before learned Single Judge. Therefore, the first submission does not impress us.
4.2. The second submission that the provisions of Rule 3 read with Rule 18 of 1992 Rules, as amended in 2005, come in the way of pension being granted to the Respondents, bit difficult to agree with. Such a contention was taken up in Panigrahi supra and in an avalanche of cases; the same came to be negatived and resultantly terminal benefits like pension came to be granted to all other similarly circumstanced employees, as contended by Mr. Mishra. Matter was carried further to the portals of Apex Court and the challenge was laid to rest in SLP (C) Diary No(s). 50364 of 2023 disposed off on 02.01.2024, whereby imprimatur was accorded to the Division Bench judgment. Therefore, the second submission also falls to the ground.
4.3. There is also force in the submission of learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mishra that when the State has already granted terminal benefits like pension, etc. under the provisions of 1992 Rules post 2005 amendment, would carve out a class within the class of pensioners, which falls foul of D.S. Nakara Jurisprudence. It is not disputed before us by the AGA that all other similarly circumstanced employees, who had litigated before this Court successfully, have been granted pensionary benefits under the 1992 Rules, of course mutatis mutandis. If that be so, what justification the State has to adopt a step-motherly attitude for the poor Respondents herein, remains un-understandable. In C. Lalitha supra, Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the culpable conduct of State in driving a set of employees to the avoidable legal battle, when other similarly circumstanced set had emerged victorious in the litigation.
4.4. It hardly needs to be stated that the State, being a Model Employer, vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234, should have on its own extended the benefits of decision in Panigrahi supra. That course would have saved public time of the Court and private time of the litigants, when pendency of cases is mounting up. This Court notes it with penury at heart that several unworthy cases are filed before Writ Courts even when debatable issues have already been laid to rest at the level of Apex Court of the country. Which section of the bureaucracy prompts filing of cases of the kind, remains a riddle wrapped in enigma. Such a tendency on the part of State and its instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, needs to be checked and sooner it is done, better it will be.
Otherwise, the objects of constitutionally ordained welfare State would be defeated to the detriment of citizens.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly rejected, costs having been made easy. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge shall be implemented within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks, and a compliance report shall be filed with the Registrar General of this Court in two (2) weeks next following, without driving the poor Respondents to another round of avoidable litigation.
Web copy of the judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.