AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All the writ petitions have been clubbed together and are disposed of by the following common judgment.
Instant writ petitions are filed with the following reliefs, such as, (i) to treat the petitioners to be in regular service under the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Odisha with respect to their appointments as per Annexure-3; (ii) to bring them under the GPF Scheme w.e.f. initial dates of appointment and to provide service benefits including pension, gratuity etc. as regular appointees under the Government; (iii) to quash Para-3 of the resolution dated 20th August, 2015 as at Annexure-9 to the effect that their regular services shall be reckoned from the date of absorption in the Odisha Diploma Engineers Service Cadre of Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Odisha; and (iv) to pass such other orders or issue directions as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The petitioners challenge the inaction of the opposite parties in not deducting the subscription to the GPF and not extending the benefits of regular employment from the date of their respective appointments. The petitioners were sponsored by the Chairman of the Committee of Chief Engineers (NH) out of the panel and appointed under their direct administrative control with regular scale of pay and benefits attached to the posts of Junior Engineers. Such engagement of the petitioners is by following due procedure of law and they have been enjoying regular scale of pay like other Junior Engineers ever since their appointments and hence, they are entitled to be deemed to be regular from the appointed dates with all financial and consequential benefits like others, who are similarly placed in Govt. Departments. The plea of the petitioners is that they are entitled to the benefits in accordance with the OCS (Pension) Rules,1992 and the GPF (Odisha) Rules, 1938 and by not extending the same, it amounts to hostile discrimination and violative of Articles 14,16,21 & 39(d) of the Constitution of India.
On the other hand, the opposite parties plead that the petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineers (JRY) at DRDA level and posted in the Blocks and their services were regulated under the DRDA Regulation Act, 1989 and subsequently have been extended all the service benefits as admissible to the regular recruited employees of the DRDAs, which is not at par with employees of the State Government till their absorption as regular Junior Engineers under the PR & DW Department. After such absorption into regular establishment as Junior Engineers, it is further pleaded that they are demanding the benefits, such as, deduction of the GPF subscription from their salary and to provide them the superannuation benefits including pension, gratuity etc. The stand of the opposite parties is that before absorption of the petitioners into regular establishment as Junior Engineers under the PR & DW Department pursuant to the resolution of the Government dated 20th August, 2015, they were allowed the service benefits as admissible to the employees of the DRDAs. As to the subscription of GPF, according to the opposite parties, such benefits cannot be allowed to them as they are covered under the EPF Act. It is further pleaded that the Finance Department vide letter dated 4th April, 2007 have clarified that the persons, who are appointed under job-contract and work-charged establishment prior to 1st January, 2005 and brought over to the regular establishment on or after 1st January, 2005, their cases would be governed in terms of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and existing GPF (Odisha) Rules,1938. But in the case of the petitioners since they were engaged in the DRDAs following the provisions of the Odisha District Rural Development Agency Employees (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1989 (henceforth called as ‘the Regulations’) prior to their absorption as Junior Engineers under PR & DW Department w.e.f. 20th August, 2015, the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(Odisha) Rules,1938 are not applicable to them.
The Government by resolution dated 6th August, 1979 as at Annexure-1 constituted a Committee consisting of Chief Engineer and other Heads of the Department for recruitment of Junior Engineers in accordance with Rule 5(2) of the Odisha Junior Engineer Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972. Some changes were made to the resolution (supra) and further resolutions dated 3rd April, 1991 and 2nd February, 2000 were issued. As per the G.A. Department resolution dated 3rd April, 1991, all appointments in the Government Departments/Undertakings and other Government Institutions are to be made from a panel of candidates maintained by the Committee. According to the resolution dated 2nd February, 2000 of the Government, in partial modification of the G.A. Department resolution dated 3rd April 1991, the Committee was reconstituted vide resolution at Annexure-1 series. In view of the resolution of the Government, the names of the petitioners were empanelled by the Committee. Accordingly, as further made to appear, the petitioners’ names were sponsored to Panchayati Raj Department for appointment in different DRDAs under (JRY) Scheme as Junior Engineers in the regular scale of pay of Rs. 1400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600/-with usual DA, HRA and other allowances as admissible to the Junior Engineers. Subsequently, the petitioners were directed to join the DRDAs and were allocated to work in the Blocks under different DRDAs under direct administrative Control of the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Odisha.
According to the petitioners, they were appointed as Junior Engineers out of panel maintained by the Committee to the Government in Panchayati Raj Department, namely, opposite party No.1 and accordingly, were appointed in the DRDAs. The appointment letters of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are at Annexure-2 series. The other petitioners received their appointments and joined as Junior Engineers. The details of the service particulars of the petitioners are at Annexure-3. It is to mention that the petitioners have been appointed during the year 1996 to 2000. It is stated that opposite party No.1 directed all the Collectors by letter dated 13th January, 2000 to maintain the CCRs of the Junior Engineers (JRY) in the offices of the Project Director, DRDAs.
The Junior Engineers (JRY) were renamed as Junior Engineers (Scheme & Estimators) on redistribution of posts in different districts vide Annexure-5. According to the petitioners as per the Finance Department Letter No. 32861 dated 3rd August 2004 (Annexure-6) for fiscal correction, opposite party No. 1 directed to abolish 18 posts of Junior Engineers (Scheme & Estimators) lying vacant at different offices under the PR Department. It is also stated that out of 45 sanctioned posts in Panchayati Raj Department for Civil Junior Engineers, 337 posts were allotted to Junior Engineer (Scheme & Estimators) and therefore, the petitioners ought to have been treated as regularly appointed Junior Engineers against sanctioned posts lying vacant by then and while claiming so, refers to Annexure-7, a copy of the resolution dated 26th December, 2013 of the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Odisha. The claim is that under the (JRY) Scheme renamed as Junior Engineers (Scheme & Estimators), the Service Books of the petitioners like regular Junior Engineers were opened and allowed to draw basic pay with all other allowances admissible. The petitioners have also been accorded revised scale of pay as per the ORSP Rules, 1998 as applicable to other regular Junior Engineers. With such other facts pleaded on record, the claim of the petitioners is that they are to be treated as regular Junior Engineers since their date of appointment and are not guided and governed by the Regulations of the DRDAs.
Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Brahma, learned ASC for the State.
The recruitment to the posts of Junior Engineer is guided by the Odisha Junior Engineers Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1972 (shortly as ‘the Rules’). The related provisions of the Rules, such as, Rule 5(1) stipulates that all vacancies shall be filled up in the manner indicated. Rule 5(2) thereof prescribes that there shall be a Committee comprising of the Chief Engineers, Roads and Building; Irrigation; Electricity; Public Health & Rural Engineering Organization. The Chairmanship of the Committee shall be determined, according to the cadre to which, the recruitment is to be held. Rules 2(a), 4 & 5(1)(a) of the Odisha Junior Engineers (Constitution of Cadre) Rules, 1982 are also relevant for a mention. According to Rule 2(a), ‘cadre’ means the cadre of Junior Engineer constituted under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5. Rule 4 prescribes that each Department of Government, which has a cadre of Junior Engineers constituted under the Rules and a cadre of Sub-Assistant Engineer shall, on the date of commencement of the Rules, have a cadre of Junior Engineers. Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules stipulates that the cadre of Junior Engineers shall comprise of the Junior Engineers recruited under the Rules, who continue as such on the date of commencement of the Rules. The contention of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate is that the petitioners were appointed from a panel by the recommendation of the Committee in accordance with the Rules and have been under the administrative control of opposite party No.1 though received appointments and engaged under the DRDAs, hence, are to be treated as regular appointees under the Government like other Junior Engineers. The submission is that the empanelled Diploma Engineers appointed in other Government Departments are said to be regularly appointed under the Government, whereas, the petitioners received appointments from the same panel and engaged in DRDAs are not similarly treated having no choice to opt their allocations. It is contended that even if the petitioners have been appointed against the posts under the Panchayati Raj Department, their services have not been treated as regular from the dates of initial appointment, which is grossly discriminatory and in flagrant violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of the contentions advanced, case laws have been cited by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, which are to be discussed hereafter. Not only the demand is for regular appointment from inception but also for entitlement of all other benefits on superannuation like pension, gratuity etc. claiming that they are to be deemed as regularly appointed Junior Engineers under the Rules. On the contrary, Mr. Brahma, learned ASC would submit that the petitioners have been regularly absorbed and brought into the Diploma Engineering Cadre (Civil) of PR & DW Department w.e.f. 20th August, 2015 pursuant to the decision of the Cabinet in its 16th meeting held on 13th August, 2015 and therefore, are regular Junior Engineers on and from then only and not from the dates of their initial appointment, which was with the DRDAs having their service conditions are guided and governed by the Regulations. But according to the opposite parties, the PR & DW Department, to safeguard the interest of the Junior Engineers working for a pretty long time under them, vide resolution dated 26th December, 2013 i.e. Annexure-7, took a decision to absorb the Junior Engineers (Scheme & Estimators), Junior Engineers(NFFW) and GPTAs in regular cadre and therefore, the petitioners, whose services have been regularized accordingly cannot be deemed to have been appointed as against regular posts from their initial dates of appointment and hence, such a claim is wholly misconceived. But then, according to the petitioners, the engagement is under the Panchayati Raj Department and against sanctioned posts lying vacant at that point of time, hence, are to be deemed as regular Junior Engineers for the purpose of pension, gratuity and pensionary benefits.
In the considered view of the Court, if out of a panel, the Committee recommends and the Diploma Junior Engineers to receive appointments in Government Departments and also under JRY Scheme in DRDAs, it is quite unusual to treat the latter differently. The petitioners have no choice or option except to join under the JRY scheme having been sponsored. The other Junior Engineers, who received their appointments in Government Departments and other Undertakings have been treated as regular appointees under the Government but not the petitioners, who are from the same panel prepared by the Committee and what is the rationality behind such decision is difficult to fathom.
Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate submits that such differentiation amounts to hostile discrimination and in clear violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. This Court is entirely in agreement with Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate to hold that when the petitioners received appointments from a common pool/panel but were made to join in the DRDAs under JRY Scheme, it is not their fault, rather, they had no choice or rights to bargain and had to receive the appointments. Above all, the appointments are under the Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Odisha. This Court is unable to accept the proposition that the service conditions of the petitioners are to be governed by the Regulations as pleaded by the opposite parties. If the petitioners received RACP and MACP with financial upgradations under the ORSP Rules, 2008 and one of them, namely, petitioner No.6 said to have been departmentally proceeded with under Rule 15(4) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 by the Government in Panchayati Raj Department and are entitled to leave sanctioned to them under the Odisha Leave Rules, 1966, in the humble view of the Court, it is really a discrimination not to treat them as regular Junior Engineers, especially, when some of the empanelled Junior Engineers received regularization having been appointed under the different Government Departments/Undertakings. It was not that sanctioned posts were not available with Panchayati Raj Department for Civil Junior Engineers and it is neither denied by the opposite parties. Under the above circumstances, when the appointments have taken place against the sanctioned posts, by merely deploying the petitioners under the JRY (Scheme), it cannot be said that they have not been regularly appointed by the Government. In the considered view of the Court, the petitioners should be deemed to have been regularly appointed under the Panchayati Raj Department as against sanctioned posts. In the meantime, the petitioners have been promoted to the posts of Assistant Engineers and thereafter, as Assistant Executive Engineers and some have also retired.
Upon perusal of the rejoinder affidavit to the counter of opposite party No.1, it reiterated therein that the petitioners have availed RACPs & MACPs with 1st and 2nd Financial upgradations after completion of 10 and 20 years of regular service and such benefits have been extended due to stagnation in promotion and hence, the claim is that they are to be treated as regular Junior Engineers under the Panchayati Raj Department as they were eligible for promotion to the rank of Assistant Engineers redesignated as Assistant Executive Engineer. In support of the entitlement of GPF, the petitioners referred to Annexure-20 series to the rejoinder. With respect to departmental action in accordance with OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 against similarly situated Junior Engineers, the petitioners placed reliance on Annexure-21 series to the rejoinder. It is further pleaded that the petitioners have availed leave prior to 2015 in accordance with the Odisha Leave Rules,1966 and refers to Annexure-22 series. The entire claim of the petitioners is that all along they have been treated as regularly appointed Junior Engineers at par with their counterparts in Government except the fact that they received appointments in the DRDAs under the JRY Scheme. It is, therefore, according to the petitioners that the appointments are deemed to be regular from the very beginning. Having considered the rival claims, this Court reiterates that any such indifferent treatment to the petitioners by claiming that their service conditions were governed by the Regulations is definitely discriminatory and violates the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.
Some of the decisions relied on from the side of the petitioners are discussed hereinbelow briefly. In State of Himachal Pradesh & another Vrs. Sheela Devi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 662, the Apex Court held that past service as on contractual employee is to be taken into account for pension referring to Rules 2(g) and 17 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 pari materia to the OCS Pension Rules, 1992. Similarly in S.D. Jayaprakash & Others Vrs. The Union of India & Others arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 19539-19540 of 2021, the Apex Court in view of the Rule 14 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 held and observed that the past services are to be counted with regular for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. This Court in Swetapadma Samal Vrs. State of Odisha & others in W.P.(C) No. 26508 of 2017 dated 22nd September, 2023 held and concluded that the petitioner therein shall have to be brought into the folds of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and GPF (Odisha) Rules, 1938 by reckoning the date of initial appointment on contractual basis w.e.f. 7th July, 2000. Similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India & others Vrs. Dr. Manoj Kumar Das in W.P.(C) No. 27890 of 2025 dated 9th January, 2026. One of the Junior Engineers similarly situated had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4045 of 2024 disposed of on 16th May, 2025, wherein, a direction was issued to allow him to have GPF Account Number under the GPF (Odisha) Rules, 1938. Referring to the case laws (supra), Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the petitioners ought to have been treated as regular Junior Engineers from the dates of their appointment and not from their date of absorption w.e.f. 20th August, 2015.
The primary objection against the claim of the petitioners is that their service conditions are governed by the Regulations, but this Court is not inclined to accept such contention of the State for the reason that the petitioners joined as Junior Engineers under the Panchayati Raj Department even though joined against the posts in the DRDAs and at the Block level. The Regulations do not govern the service conditions of the Junior Engineers, who are appointed pursuant to the Government orders and from an approved panel of Diploma Engineers. Instead, the recruitment of Diploma Engineers and their service conditions are governed by the Government Service Rules. In fact, the DRDA is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act. In case of the petitioners, when joined as Junior Engineers and received appointments under a Government Department by the orders Government from a pre-determined panel of diploma holders, they are said to have entered a State-regulated pool and therefore, their rights, promotions and payroll structures are bound by the Executive Circulars issued by the PR & DW Department. According to the Court, the structural cadre, Seniority and service rules follow overarching State framework, such as, Odisha Diploma Engineers’ Service Rules, rather than, localized DRDA Regulations. Furthermore, in cases where, the statutory service rules are silent on specific deployment or panel-based intake, formal Govt. orders and resolutions override internal DRDA decisions. In summary, this Court concludes that the Government approved panel of diploma holders received appointments and therefore, to take a stand that the petitioners are governed by the Regulations is entirely misconceived. It is reiterated that the service conditions and cadre rules of the petitioners are governed by the Government Service Rules. In the humble view of the Court, the petitioners have joined as Junior Engineers selected from a panel of Diploma Engineers based on explicit Government orders, hence, are to be treated as the part of the State’s Engineering Cadre because the appointment originates from a Government directive and therefore, their service conditions, such as, seniority, pay scale and promotions are tethered to the statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which has led to the enactment of Odisha Diploma Engineers Service Rules. It has to be concluded that the petitioners, who are Junior Engineers even though joined in DRDAs are generally treated as being on deputation picked up from the primary State pool and subsequently absorbed into PR & DW Department cadre via specific regularization scheme removing them entirely from any standalone Regulations.
Considering the pleadings on record and submissions of learned counsels for both the sides and having regard to the Government’s resolutions, this Court reaches at an irresistible conclusion that the Government’s decision vide Para-3 of the resolution dated 20th August, 2015 as at Annexure-9 to the effect that the regular services of the petitioners shall be reckoned from the date of their absorption into the cadre of Panchayati Raj Department suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and hence, illegal and unconstitutional and therefore, the same shall have to be quashed so as to treat them in regular service or deemed to be in such service under the Government from the respective dates of appointment as per Annexure-3. At the same time, it has to be concluded that the petitioners’ entitlement shall be notional and the past service shall be reckoned for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits like other regularly appointed Junior Engineers under the Government Departments/Undertakings and accordingly, it is ordered.
In the result, the writ petitions stand allowed. As a necessary corollary, the Government’s decision to the extent vide Para-3 of the resolution dated 20th August, 2015 as at Annexure-9 is hereby quashed with the directions hereinabove for compliance by opposite party No.1 at the earliest preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.