AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Mohapatra, J
The sole grievance of the Petitioner is that the Opposite Party-Authorities are not releasing the arrear service benefits as per the statement under
Annexure-4 to the Applicants, Petitioners herein. The original application was filed by one Sananta Kumar Mishra, claiming the aforesaid benefits.
During pendency of the application before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, the aforesaid Original Applicant has died
leaving behind his legal heirs who have been substituted in place of the deceased original applicant and they are the petitioners in this writ petition.
The case of the Original Applicant is that he was having higher qualification and as such was duly selected following due procedure of selection in
the State Transport Service (S.T.S.) as a Conductor. Initially the original applicant joined as a conductor on 30th June, 1971. While continuing as such,
he was deputed to Odisha State Road Transport Corporation (O.S.R.T.C.) on 15th
May, 1974. Thereafter he was promoted as Assistant Station Master (A.S.M.), then Station Master (S.M.) and Senior Station Master (S.S.M.).
Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the Original Applicant had never opted for permanent absorption in O.S.R.T.C. As such,
while continuing as an employee of erstwhile S.T.S. in the Corporation, he had retired from the service as Senior Station Master, w.e.f. 31st March,
2010 on attaining the age of superannuation.
It was further submitted that on repeated approach by the Original Applicant to the Opposite Party No.2, the O.S.R.T.C. vide its letter dated 30th
August, 2010 requested the Opposite Party No.1 for release of pensionary benefits of the original applicant saying therein that he is a temporary
government employee of the erstwhile S.T.S. and was on deputation to the Corporation previously. In the said letter it was further stated that there is
no outstanding against the Original Applicant to be recovered from his gratuity. Thereafter, Government vide its letter dated 1st November, 2010
(Annexure-3) wrote to the Accountant General (A&E), Bhubaneswar for sanction of final pension to the Original Applicant and the Original
Applicant started receiving the pension and pensionary benefits in the revised scale of pay.
It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Transport Manager (A), O.S.R.T.C., Bhubaneswar, vide letter
dated 26th March, 2011 written to the Establishment Officer, O.S.R.T.C., Bhubaneswar regarding fixation of arrear pay of the Original Applicant
with effect from 1st January, 1996 till the date of his retirement. The Original Applicant during his life time submitted several representations to the
Opposite Parties, vide Annexure-5, requesting them to release his arrear amount. But to his misfortune, no action was taken on such representation of
the Petitioner, which compelled the Original Applicant to approach learned Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1173(C) of 2018.
Learned counsel for the Petitioners further draws attention of this Court to the order of the learned Tribunal dated 7th November, 1998 passed in
O.A. Nos.2530, 2647 and 2648 of 1997 by different persons. It is stated that identical issues were involved in the said OAs. Learned Orissa
Administrative Tribunal disposed of those applications by holding that the Applicant was a government servant working on deputation in O.S.R.T.C.
and further directed to release pensionary benefits and other admissible dues in favour of the Applicant in the aforesaid Original Applications.
The aforesaid order of the learned Orissa Administrative Tribunal was challenged before this Court in O.J.C. No.8217 of 1999 by the State of
Orissa, represented by the present Opposite Party No.1. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 7th August, 2002 dismissed the writ
application holding that the same is devoid of any merit. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by a
Division Bench of this court was assailed by the State by filing SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further submits that the SLP has also been dismissed. Therefore the order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in the case of
Bhakta Narayan Upadhyaya has attained finality.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the claim of the Petitioner is squarely covered under the above note case as Petitioner
stands in similar footing with Bhakta Narayan Upadhya.
Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the records and pleadings of the parties, this court is of the considered view
that if fact the petitioner’s case is similar to the above referred case and he is entitled to get the benefits as has been given to the petitioner in the
above noted case.
In such view of the matter, the present writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the claim of the
Petitioner in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal for payment of arrear dues as mentioned under Annexure-4
within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner along with a copy of the statement filed
along with the present case and marked as Annexure-4. Any decision taken in the matter shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a period of
two weeks from the date of such decision..
…………………………………….