IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

rorder XXII, Rule 3(1)(a), SCR, 2013]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

(PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION {CIVIL} NO. _ _ _ OF 2024

(Arising out of the final judgment and order dated 09.11.2023 passed

•
by the Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa at Cuttack in W.A. No 1356/2023)

IN THE MATTER OF:

State of Odisha & Ors. .. .Petitioners

Versus

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan ...Respondents

PAPER BOOK
[For index please see inside]

8S'8--e \
I.A. NO. of 2024

•• Application for Exemption from filing certified copy of impugned

order
i5&o3 of 2024
I.A. NO.
Application For Condonation Of De1ay In Re-Filing S.L.P

ADVOCATE FOR Tlffi PETITIONER:

KIRAN KUMAR PATRA
 INDEX

S.No. Particular of Document Page No. of part to Rema

which it belon~ rks
Part I Part II
(Contents of (Contents
page Book) of file
alone)
(1) (ll) (111) (1v) (v)
1 Court Fees

2 Office Report on Limitation A

0 3 Listing Proforma Al-A3

4 Cover Page of Paper Book A4

5 Index of Record of Proceedmgs AS

6 Lnmtahon Report prepared by

the Registry A6

7 Note Sheet A7

8 Synopsis & L1st of Dates g -H

9 Copy of the 1mpugned order
dated 09 11 2023 passed by the } - 1-
Hon'ble High Court ofOnssa at
Q Cuttack ansmg out of WA No
1356/2023
10 Special Leave Pennon along 3~ l°}
with Affidavit

11 Appendix:-
12-0 -1.l
Article 226 Conshtut10n of
India
12 ANNEXURE P-1
Copy of letter dated 22 01 2014 2-ri_ ~

issued by office of Tahs1ldar,

Banla.
✓

/
 13 ANNEXURE P-2
Copy of pens10n payment '2.~ -- 25
order dated 08 01 2019

14. ANNEXURE P-3

Copy of WP. (C) No 8008 of
2022 filed by the Respondent m
2f, -- '-\b
the Hon'ble high Court of
Onssa at Cuttack
-
15 ANNEXURE P-4
Copy of order dated 25.04.2022
.
passed m W.P (C) no. 8008 of ~1- 5-o
2022 passed Hon'ble high

u Court of Onssa at Cuttack

16. ANNEXURE P-5

Copy of W.A No 1356 of
I
20~ filed m the Hon'ble High SI .-- 6~ ,
Court of Onssa at Cuttack by
the Petitioners

17 ANNEXURE P-6
Copy of I A No 3542 of 2023 (:,5 .- 6~
filed along with the wnt appeal

18 I.A.NO. of2024
Application for Exemption from
filmg certrfied copy of
63-- 6~
impugned order
0
19 I.A. NO. of2024
Application For Condonahon -;:;v -7]
Of Delay In Re-F1lmg SL P

20 F1lmg Index 7l)

21 Memo of Parnes 15
22 V akalatnama ~
I
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A
[Order XXIl, Rule 3(1)(a), SCR, 2013]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Under Article 136 of the Constrtutron of Indra)

(PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _ _ _ OF 2024

(Ansmg out of the final judgment and order dated 09 11 2023 passed
by the Hon'ble High Court ofOnssa at Cuttack mW A No 1356/2023)
0
IN THE MATTER OF:

State of Odisha & Ors Petitioners

Versus

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan Respondent

OFFICE REPORT ON UMITATION

~ The pet1t1on rs within trme.

2. The petrtron rs barred by bme therefore, there 1s delay
of_ days in filing the same against the impugned order
0 dated 09.11 23 and pet1t1on for condonat1on o f _ days
delay has been fr~~
\_,../.3. There 1s delay of~days in re-f1lrng the appeal and pet1t1on
for condonation of delayJJdays rn re-filing has been fried.

BRANCH OFFICER

FILED ON: 2.D , o l · 2-0 'L~

PLACE New Delhi

 Al
PROFORMA FOR. FIRST LISTING
SECTION XI-A

The case pertains to (please tick/check the correct box):

□ Central Act: (Title) COI

□ Section: 226

□ Central Rule: (Title) NA

l '---
I
J

D RuleNo(s): NA

□ State Act: (fitle) NA

D Section: NA

□ State Rule: (fitle) NA

□ RuleNo(s): NA

□ Impugned Interim Order: NA

(
\
) (Date)
- I

D Impugned Final
Order/Decree: (Date)
09 11 2023

[J High Court: (Name) HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF

ORISSAATCUITACK

[J Name of Judges:
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DR
BR SARANGI
HON'BLE JUSTICE
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
D Tribunal/Authority: (Name)

I
I
 □
1. Nature of matter: ✓ Civil Cnminal

2. (a) Petitioner/Appellant No.1: STATE OF ODISHA & ORS

(b) E-mail ID:

(c) Mobile phone number: l J

3. (a) Respondent RAMESH CHANDRA PRADHAN

(b) E-mail ID:

'
(c) Mobile phone number: NA.
l'
'
J
4. (a) Main category classification: 18
(b) Sub classification : 1807
5. Not to be listed before: NA

6. (a) Similar disposed of matter No snmlar matter disposed of

vvith citation, if any, & case
details:
(b) Similar pending matter with No sumlar matter pendmg
case details:
7. Criminal matters : NA

(a) Whether accused/ convict has surrendered Yes No

(
- (b) FIR No. NA Date: NA
~-
1

(c) Police Station NA

(d) Sentence Awarded NA
(e) Sentence Undergone NA
8. Land Acquisition Matters: NA
(a) Date of Section 4 NA
notification:
(b) Date of Section 6 NA
notification:
(c) Date of Section 17 NA.
notification:
 10. Special Category (First '/appellant only): N.A
Senior citizen >65 SC/S Woman/child Disable
years T d
Legal Aid Case In custody
11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters): NA

{KIRAN KUMAR PATRA]

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
Code:2367
Email: [email protected]
Mob:9810663301
PLACE: NEW DELID
DATE: 2.0 .01.2024

0
 SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
The mstant Special leave Pet1t10n by the State of Odisha 1s bemg filed

agamst the impugned final Judgement and order dated 09 11 2023

passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Onssa at Cuttack, mW A No

1356 of 2023, where by the wnt appeal filed by the State of Od1sha '_ -

agamst order 25 04 2022 passed by the Hon'ble High Court mW P (C)

No 8008 of 2022, was dismissed by the D1v1s10n Bench of the High

Court, solely on the grounds of delay without advertmg to the men ts of

the case m any manner whatsoever The wnt appeal was chsm1ssed m

view of the Judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Onssa m

the case WP (C) No 15763 of 2021 titled as "State of Od1sha & ors

Vs Surama ManJan Das" However the court fatled to appreciate that m

the present case the reason for the delay m fillmg the mstant case was

explamed by the Pet1t10ner m the wnt appeal by filmg I A No 3542 of

2023 mW A 1356 of2023

That this Hon'ble Court m C1v1l Appeal No 7711 of 2023 titled "State

of Od1sha and Ors Vs NlkunJa Kishore Parugrahi" has allowed the

Special Leave Petition by order dated 21 11 2023 and remanded back

the mattei to the High Court to decide the same on ments, which was

d1sID1ssed by the Hon'ble High Court on the ground of delay and !ache,;

1elymg upon the Judgment and order of High Court of Onssa m Case of

State ofOd1sha & Ors Vs SuramaManJan Das WP (C) 15763 of2021

 G
This Hon'ble Court m Sndev1 Datla v Umon of India & Ors (2021) 5

SCC 321 has held that the expression "sufficient cause" must receive a

hberal construct10n so as to advance substantial Justice and that

generally delay m preferrmg appeals are reqmred to be condoned m the

mterest of JUst1ce where no gross negligence or deliberate maction or

lack of bona £ides is imputable to the party seekmg condonat10n of

delay.

(J It was further held that Adoption of a stnct standard of proof somehmes

fails to protect public Justice and 1t may result m public rrusch1ef There

cannot be a umversal formula to Judge whether sufficient cause has, or

has not been shown and the exercise 1s necessanly fact specific

This Hon'ble Court m Collector, Land Acqmsit10n, Anantnag and Ors

vs KatiJi and Ors AIR 1987 SC 1353 held that the expression of

sufficient cause 1s adequately elashc to enable the courts to apply the

law m a meanmgful manner which sub serves the ends of Justice That

0 the Hon 'ble Supreme Court m the above noted Judgement has also held

that "refusmg to condone delay can result m a mentonous matter bemg

thrown out at the very threshold and cause ofJUstJ.ce bemg defeated As

agamst this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen 1s that

a cause would be decided on ments after heanng the parties"

Though the petitioner had provided sufficient cause for the delay m

fillmg the Wnt appeal, However, the Hon'ble High court d1sm1ssed the

wnt appeal without considenng the ment on the ground of delay relymg

on the case of State of Odisha & ors Vs Surama ManJ an Das

It 1s respectfully submitted that the impugned Judgement passed by the

Hon'ble High Court m the wnt appeal, without any mdependent

considerat10n or reasoning of the case on the ments, 1s neither

appropnate m the lights of the facts and circumstances of the mstant

case, nor JUSt1:fied m law, and the same is mconsistent with, and contrary

to the law settled and laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

The short question raised m the present petition which need to be

adJud1cated by this Hon'ble Court 1s whether the entrre service rendered

by an employee mcludmg service under the work charge establishment

shall have to be counted for determmmg the amount of pens10n after

the work charge employee aie regulansed under OCS Pension, Rules

1992

The issue m the present hs 1s squarely coveied by the rahon laid down

by tlus Hon 'ble Court m "Uday Praiab Thakur and Anr Vs State of

Bzhar and Ors (2023) SCC OnLme SC 527", wherem this Hon'ble

CoUl t has held that "It i~ ofoerved and held tluit the service rende,·ed

as work charged after their sen11ces have been regulanzed under the
 regulanzation scheme, namely, the Rules, 2013 and the C1rcular shall

be counted for the purpose ofqualifymg sel'Vzce for pension only as per

Rule 5 (v) of the Rules, 2013 "

The Hon'ble Division bench of the Hon'ble High court of Onssa has

disrmssed the mtra court appeal on the ground of llm1tat10n and the

appeal was not considered on ment, agamst the order of the Hon 'ble

Smgle Judge, wherem the Hon'ble smgle Judge has directed the

Petitioner to count the entire penod of service mcludmg the penod of

service as JOb contract employee rendered by the Respondent for

calculatmg the pens10nary benefits, which is contrary to the sub rule(6)

of rule 18 of the OCS (Pens10n) Rule whJ.ch was mserted to the rules by

virtue of an amendment w e f OI 09 200 I

Rule-18 reads as follows

"18(6) Notwzthstandmg anythzng contazned zn Clauses (l) and (m) of

Sub rule (2), a person who lS zmtially appointed m a Job contract

0 establzshment and zs subsequently brought over to the post created

under regularlpenswnable establzshment, so much of his 10b contract

se!'Vzce period shall be added to the penod of his qualifymg servzce m

regular establzshment and would render hzm elzgzble for pension "

The aforesaid stator prov1s10n has been ignored by the hon 'ble Smgle

Judge whJ.le passmg order dated 25 04 2022

 ,~

p
LIST OF DATES
04 03 1978 The Respondent was appornted as a chamman under

JOb contract m the office of the Tahasildar, Banla

under Revenue Department

22 01 2014 The Respondent's service was regulanzed and he

was appornted as peon m the office of the

Tahasildar, Banla by Office order dated 22 01 2014

Copy of letter dated 22 01 2014 issued by office of

T ahsildar, Banla is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE P-1 (Pages ,m'2.1- )

31062017 Respondent rehred from Government service on

attarnmg the age of superannuation on 31 06 2017

08 01 2019 The Respondent subnutted ms Pens10n Payment

order befoi e the competent authonty

Copy of pension payment order dated 08 01.2019

1s annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE

P-2 (Pages 7.3 to 25 ).

07 10 2022 The Respondent filed WP (C) No 8008 of 2022 m

the Hon'ble High Court of Onssa at Cuttack seek.mg

dlrect10n to the Pet1t10ners to grant pens10ns and

 bJ
pens10nary benefits by countmg lus entire past

service rncludrng bis employment under Job

contract and regular establishment

Copy of WP (C) No 8008 of 2022 filed by the

' jI

Respondent m the Hon'ble lugh Court of Onssa at

Cuttack is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE P-3 (Pages'Z,6 to '-{ D )

25 04 2022 The Hon'ble Smgle Judge of the Hon'ble High

Court by order 25 04 2022 relymg m the Judgment

passed by the Hon'ble High court m the case ofT A

No 11 of 1993 (Bbagaban Patnaik vs State of

Odisha) disposed off the wnt petit10n with

followmg directions -

"In the view of the analysis of the facts made

heremabove as well as pnnczple of the law

0
discussed, this court lS of the considered vzew the

petztzoner's entire service penod rs to be taken znto

conszderatzon for calculation of Ins penswnary

benefits"

Copy of order dated 25 04 2022 passed mW P (C)

no 8008 of 2022 passed Hon'ble lugh Court of

 H ----------

Onssa at Cuttack is annexed herewith and marked

as ANNEXURE- P-04 (Pages '1 \ to 50 ).

26.06.2023 Petit10ners filed WA No 1356 of 2023 m the

Hon'ble High Court of Onssa at Cuttack
challengmg the order/Judgment dated 25 04 2022
The Petitioner along with the Wnt Appeal filed an
apphcahon seekmg condonat10n of delay m filrng
the appeal

Copy of WA No 1356 of 2022 filed m the

Hon'ble High Court of Onssa at Cuttack by the
Petit10ne1s 1s annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE- P-0S(Pages SI to b¼ ).
Copy of I A No 3542 of 2023 filed along with the
wnt appeal 1s annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE- P-06(Pages b5 to 63--- ).
09 11 2023 The Hon'ble D1v1s1on Bench ofHon'ble High Court

by impugned order dismissed the wnt appeal on the

ground of delay and laches without gomg mto the

men ts of the case

Hence, the Special Leave Pet1hon

 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.A. No.1356 of 2023

State of Od1sha & A-nY. .. Appellants

Mr. Rabi Narayan Mishra, AGA

Vs.

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan S (i'tS• Respondents

CORAM:
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER
09.11.2023

WA. No.1356 of 2023 & I A No.3543 of 2023

1 This matter 1s taken up by hybrid mode.

2 This appl1cat1on has been filed for condonat,on of delay of

394 days in preferring the Writ Appeal.

3 Heard Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Addi Government

Advocate appearing for the State-Appellants.

1 I
4. As 1t appears, the order impugned has been passed on
25.04.2022 and the writ appeal has been filed on
23.06.2023. Therefore, the appeal suffers from delay and
laches. Further, 1t appears that sufficient cause has not
been shown to condone the delay of 394 days rn
preferring the writ appeal That apart, no due diligence
has been indicated in the pet1t1on in preferring the writ
appeal.
 5. In the above view of the matter, this Court Is not inclined
to entertain the wnt appeal at this belated stage, as the
same suffers from delay and !aches, in view of the
Judgment/order of this Court rn the case of State of
Od1sha v. Surama Manjan Das (W.P.(C) No. 15763 of
2021 d1sm1ssed on 16.07.2021), which has been
confirmed by the apex sourt, vIde order dated 05.04.2023
in S L P (C) Diary No. 9259 of 2023.

6. Accordingly, the interlocutory appl1cat1on merits no

cons1derat1on and the same Is hereby d1sm1ssed.
Consequentially, the writ appeal 1s also d1sm1ssed.

(DR B. R. SARANGI)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE

0
 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Order XXII, Rule 3(l)(a), SCR, 2013]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

r

(PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIGN (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024

(Ansing out of the final judgment and order dated 09 11.2023 passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack m W A No 1356/2023)

POSmON OF PARTIES

Before In This
High Hon'ble
Court Court
1. State of Odisha,
represented through its
its Secretary to Government of Orissa
Department of Revenue & Disaster Management,
Lok Seva Bhawan,Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda
Petitioner No 1, Petitioner No 1

2. Director, Land Records Surveys & Consolidation,

Odisha, Board of Revenue
Dist Cuttack, At/PO/Dist- Cuttack
Petitioner No 2 Petitioner No 2

3. Secretary to Govt of Odisha

• Fmance Department,
Lok Seva Bhawan,Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda
Proforma Respondent No 2 Petitioner No 3

4 Settlement Officer, Cuttack Major Settlement,

At/PO/Dist-Cuttack
Proforma Respondent no 3 Petitioner No 4
 u
5 Collector-Cum-Distnct Magistrate, Cuttack '
At/PO/PS/Dist- Cuttack
Proforma Respondent no 4 Petitioner No. 5

6 The Accountant General(A&E), Odisha Bhubaneswar,

_ At/PO-Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurdha
Proforma Respondent no 5 Petitioner No 6
VERSUS

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan, aged'about

67 years, S/o Late Sananda Pradhan,
At- Jaleswarpur
PO/PS- Kuanpal, Mahanga
Dist- Cuttack Respondent No 1 Respondent

TO,

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE

NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1 The mstant Special leave Petition by the State of Odisha is bemg

filed against the impugned final Judgement and order dated

09 11 2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Onssa at

Cuttack,in W.ANo. 1356 of2023, where by the wnt appeal filed

by the State of Odisha against order 25.04 2022 passed by the

Hon'ble Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court m W.P (C) No

8008 of 2022, was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High

Court, solely on the grounds of delay without adverting to the

 r
ments ofthe case m any manner whatsoever The wnt appeal was

dismissed m view ofthe Judgement passed by the Hon'ble High

Court of Onssa m the case W P (C)No 15763 of 2021 titled as

"State of Odisha & ors Vs Surama Manjari Das" However the

court failed to appreciate that in the present case the reason for

the delay m fillmg the instant case was explamed by the

Petitioner m the wnt appeal by filing IA No 3542 of 2023 m

WA 1356 of2023

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW

a Whether the Hon'ble High Court erred m not considermg the

case on ment and dismissmg the case on techmcality m terms

of the well settled law ofthis Hon'ble Court that a case has to

be decided on ment and otherwise mentonous case should not

be thrown out on techmcality"^

b Whether the Hon'ble High Court was not under obhgation to

be guided by the pnnciple laid down by this Hon'ble court m

Collecter,Land Acquisition, Anantnag Ors Vs Katiji and

Ors, Reported m (1987)2800107"?

c Whether m terms oflaw laid down by this Hon'ble Court m a

matter of condonation of delay, when there was no gross

negligence or deliberate maction or lack ofbonafide, a liberal

view has to be adopted to advance substantial justice"?

 6
d Whethei the Hon'ble High Court erred m passing the

impugned judgement in view of the Judgement passed by the

Court in the case state of Odisha Vs Surama Manjan Das

ignonng the fact that in the present case giounds for

condonation of delay is explained m the Wnt appeal"^

e Whether in view of the ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court

m the case of"Uday Pratap Thakur Vrs State ofBihar & Ors

CA No 3155 of2023" the directions of the courts below to

count the entire tenure of service of the Respondent as job

contract employee is sustainable'^

f Whether the orders passed by the courts below are sustainable

m view of the fact that the said ordei are agamst the Rules

govemmg the field i e OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992"^

g Whether the Hon'ble High Court is justified in having

considered the precedent set in the case of Bhagaban Pattnaik

v State of Onssa in TA No 11 of 1993, which was governed

by the now-repealed OCS Pension Rules, 1992"^

h Whether the Hon'ble Single Judge was bound to follow the

order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble High

Court in the case of 0 J C No 2147 of 1991 titled as

"Settlement Class-IV Job Contract Employees Umon,

 Balasore-Mayurbhanj Distnct -Vrs - State of Odisha &

others'?

1 Whether m any view of the matter, the impugned judgement

and order passed by the Hon'ble High Court and the directions

contained therein, at all warranted and sustainable m law"?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2);

The Petitioner has not filed any other Special Leave Petition in
o
this Hon'ble court challengmg the final Judgement dated

09 11 2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Onssa at

Cuttack in W A No 1356/2023

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:

The Petitioner submits that Annexures P-1 to P- ^ produced

along with the Special Leave Petition are true copies of

pleadmgs/documents which formed parts of the records of the

case m the Hon'ble High Court and other authorities below

against whose orders the Special Leave Petition is being moved.

5. GROUNDS:

Leave to appeal is sought on the following amongst other

grounds.
a) Because the Hon'ble High Court ought to have appreciated

the fact that there has been no negligence on the part of the

Petitioners herein m filing the wnt appeal and the cause

reasons for delay in filing the Wnt appeal is explained m the

petition It IS respectfully submitted that the reasons cited

therein were genuine and bonafide and rather than

dismissing the wnt appeal on the grounds of delay,

considenng the questions oflaw and issues raised in the wnt

appeal, the Hon'ble High Court ought to have condoned the

delay By dismissing the petition on the ground of delay

alone has resulted in upholdmg the erroneous judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Hon'ble High

Court

b) That this Hon'ble Court m Civil Appeal No 7711 of 2023

titled "State of Odisha and Ors Vs Nikunia Kishore

Pamgrahi" has allowed the Special Leave Petition by porder

dated 21 11 2023 and remanded back the matter to the High

Court to decide the same on merits, which was dismissed by

the Hon'ble High Court on the ground of delay and laches

relying upon the judgment and order ofHigh Court of Onssa

in Case of State of Odisha & Ors Vs Surama Manjan Das

WP(C)15763 of2021
c) That the facts of the present case is different from the case

of State of Odisha & Ors Vs Surama Manjan Das W P (C)

15763 of2021 In the present case the reason for the delay is

explamed in the Wnt appeal by filing an application seekmg

condonation of delay

d) Because the HonTDle High Court has dismissed the wnt

appeal filed by the Petitioners solely on the ground of delay

without advertmg to the ments of the case in any manner

The High Court has rejected the genume and detailed

explanation placed on record by the Petitioners m Civil Wnt

appeal to condone the delay m filing the wnt appeal This

HonTile Court m Sn Devi Datla v Union of India & Ors

(2021) 5 see 321 has held that the expression "sufficient

cause" must receive a liberal construction so as to advance

substantial justice and that generally delay m prefemng

appeals are requued to be condoned in mterest of justice

where no gross negligence or dehbeiate inaction or lack of

bona fides is imputable to party seeking condonation of

delay It was further held that "Adoption of a stnct standard

of proof sometimes fails to protect public justice and it may

result in public rmschief There cannot be a universal

 IP
formula to judge whether sufficient cause has, or has not
been shown and the exercise is necessanly fact specific"
e) Because when genuine reasons for delay were sufficient
explamed by the petitioner, the Hon'ble High Court ought to
have taken liberal view and in the'uiterest ofjustice ought to
have condone the delay and decided the matter on merits

This Honble court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag

and Ors vs Katiji and Ors AIR 1987 SC 1353 held that the

expression of sufficient cause is adequately elastic to enable

the courts to apply the law m a meamngful manner which
subserves the ends ofjustice That the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the above noted judgement has also held that "refusmg to
condone delay can result m a mentonous matter bemg thrown
out at the very threshold and cause ofjustice being defeated
As agamst this when delay is condoned the hughest that can
happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after
heanng the parties

f) Because the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the writ

appeal, without any independent consideration or reasoning
IS not at all appropnate m the h.ght of the facts and

circumstances of the instant case, nor justified m law, and the

 /j
same is mconsistent with, and contrary to the law settled and
laid down by this HonTsIe Court

g) Because the courts below have failed to appreciate that in

view ofthe ratio laid down by this Hon-ble Court m the case
of "Uday Pratap Thakur Vrs State of Bihai'& Ors CA No
3155 of 2023" the directions to count the entire tenure of
service of the Respondent as job contract employee is not
sustamable and the respondent is only entitled to receive the
minimum pension by countmg limited penod of service
rendered by the respondent as job contract employee,
otherwise there wiU not be any difference of m thejob tenure
of a regular employee and ajob contract employee
h) Because the courts below have failed to appreciate that in the
light of the amendment introduced by the notification dated
01 09 2001 m OCS (Pension) Rules 1992, the complete
service of the respondent as a job contract employee pnor to
his regulanzation ought not be considered for determimng his
pension entitlement and grant him full pensionary benefits
i) Because the court below are notjustified m having considered
and relying upon the precedent set in the case of Bhagaban
Pattnaik v State of Onssa m TA No 11 of 1993. which was
governed by the now-repealed OCS Pension, 1977 Thus, the
 ratio laid down by the HonT^le High Court in the case of

Bhagaban Pattnaik(supra) was actually given while

interpreting the repealed provisions of OCS Pension

Rules,1977 which is smce repealed by Pension Rules,1991

Therefore, the judgment m Bhagaban Pattnaik is qmte
distmgmshable in the facts of the present case and reliance

placed by the courts below on said judgment is most humbly

submitted to be misplaced

j) Because the HonTile Smgle Judge was bound to follow thea

order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble Higha

Court m the case of OJC No 2147 of 1991 titled as

Settlement Class-IV Job Contract Employees Union,

Balasore-Mayurbhanj Distnct -Vis - State of Odisha &

others" wherein the Hon'ble D B ofthe Hon'ble High Court m

the aforesaid judgment has categonrally held that service of

the job contract employee before his regulanzaton will only

be counted so as to make him eligible for minimum pension
benefits and not for deciding the quantum of pension
k) Because the courts below have failed to appreciate the fact
that the referenced judgment m TA No 11 of 1993, and

subsequent decisions by the Hon'ble High Court did not take

mto consideration impact of the 2001 amendment to the

 1^
Pension Rules. The said amendment, which mtroduced Sub
Rule 6 to Rule 18, was not deemed applicable to the
Respondent's case, and this crucial aspect was not duly
considered by the Hon'ble Court

1) Because the courts below have failed to appreciate that the

directions contained in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
DB ofthe Hon'ble High CourtmOJ C No 2147 of 1991 were

I 1 bindmg upon the Hon'ble Single Judge while deciding the writ
petition of the Respondent It was specifically held m O J C
No 2147 of 1991 (Settlement Class-IV Job Contract

Employees Umon,Balasore Mayuibhanj Distnct -Vis - State

of Odisha & others) that for the purpose of calculating the
pensionary benefits so much of their earlier service period
shall be considered so as to make them eligible for pension
m)Because while passing the impugned order, the Hon'ble
Smgle Judge has erroneously applied the ratio from the

directions contamed m the case ofNityananda Biswal vs State

of Onssa(supra), meiely because the special leave to appeal
was dismissed by thus Hon'ble Court m linune The Hon'ble

Single Judge has constmed the order of dismissal of SLP

passed by this Hon'ble Court as confirmation of the ratio led

down by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Nityananda

 Biswal vs State of Onssa by this 110111310 Court However, it

IS a settled position of law that mere dismissal of Special

Leave Petition would not mean that the view of High Court

has been approved by Supreme Court This ratio has been

reaffirmed by the Honlile Court m State of Odisha & others

-Vrs - Sulekh Chandra Pradhan Thus, the HonTile Single

Judge has clearly erred m the law m placing reliance on the

judgment in the case of Nityananda Biswal

n) Because financial implication ofimpugned judgement passed

by the Hon'ble High Court would be extremely onerous on

the state exchequer and the said oider of the High Court will
act as a precedent and others might claim panty with the

Respondent herein even though they might not be entitled for

the same,resultmg m cascadmg effect on the State exchequer

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

a) Because in view ofthe facts stated m the synopsis and list ofdates
and the grounds of challenge as set out in para 5 above, the

Petitioners have got apnma facie case in their favour

b) Because the Petitioners have a pnma facie good case on merits

and the balance of convenience lies in their favoui against the

Respondent and if the operation ofthe impugned judgment is not

stayed, the Petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and mjury and
 ir
hence the operation ofthe impugned judgment may be stayed, m
the mterest ofjustice

7. MAIN PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon-ble Court may be

I I Iv"" pleased to*

a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal agamst the unpugned

Judgment and final Order dated 09 11 2023 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Onssa, Cuttack m Writ appeal No
1356 of2023, and

b) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may

deem fit,just, and proper m the facts and circumstances ofthe
case

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It IS therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to

a) Grant ad interim ex parte stay of the operation ofimpugned

Judgment and final Order dated 09 11 2023 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Onssa at Cuttack m Wnt appeal No
1356 of2023 and

b) Pass any order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and
proper in the facts and circumstances ofthe case
AND FOR TfflS ACT OF KINDNESS,THE HUMBLE PETITIONER
AS IS DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

FILED BY

KUMAR PATRA
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

DRAWN ON
FILED ON • 0 \'ao2,^
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Order XXII, Rule 3(l)(a), SCR, 2013]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024

(Ansmg out of the final judgmeht and order dated 09 11 2023 passed
by the Hon'ble High Court ofOnssa at Cuttack m W A No 1356/2023)

IN THE MATTER OF:

State of Odisha & Ors Petitioner

Versus

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan Respondent

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the

pleadings before the Court whose order is challenged and the other
documents No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken
therein or rehed upon m the Special Leave Petition It is further certified
that the copies of the documents/annexures attached to the Special
Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question oflaw raised m the
petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for
consideration of this Hon'ble Court This Certificate is given on the
basis of the instructions given by the Petitioners m the Special Leave
Petiton

CERTIFIED BY:
f

[KIRAN KUMAR PATRA]

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PLACE: DELHI
DATE: .01.2024
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(Q No. OF 2024
IN THE MATTER OF;-

State of Odisha & Ors. . Petitioners

Versus
Ramesh Chandra Pradhan ...Respondents

m AFFIDAVIT

m I Shn Bijay Kumar Khandayat Ray, S/o Nabaghan Khandayat

Ray, aged about 57 years, presently posted as Director, Land
&
j Records Survey & Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha,
Cuttack do hereby solemnly afiBrm and state as under. -

1 That I am presently posted as Director, Land Records

IMif Survey & Consolidation, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack ^d

fully acquainted with the fects and circumstances of the case and
#nifi,- duly authorized to file mstant SLP on behalf of the State
Government As such authorized and competent to swear this
affidavit

2 That I have read the contents of the accompanying Special

Leave Petition from page No 3 to page No. and para No.
1 to 8, and Synopsis and List of dates from page No B- to ,

,Application of exemption finm filing certified copy of

impugned orda* fixim page No to page NoL^ and say that the
facts stated therem are true to my knowledge and belief as per the
record of the case and the submission made therein are based on

legal advice received by me through my counsel and believed to

be correct

PATTANAIK
SOTARY,CUTTACK TOWN
Regd. No-ig of 2012
 /
/

/
/
3. That the Annexure P-1 to P- ^ annexed along with the
Special Leave Petition are true copies of their respective
originals

land RECO^Sand SURVEY'S

K)ARD OF RE^UE OOlSKA,CUTTACK
VERIPICATIOM:

Y
I, the above-named dqjonent do hereby verify that the
aP
intents ofthe above affidavit are true and correct on the basis of
Q
cords and nothing &lse has been stated therein.

o Verified at drliM^on this day iS^ of January,2024.

Y / / DEPONENT / /
director
land recordsand SUR^S
board of REV^E OOlSHA CUDACK
C5
O

o
T
 APPENDIX
i-o :

Article 226 in The Constitution OfIndia 1949

226 Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

^(1)Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have
powers, throughout the temtones in relation to which it exercise
junsdiction,to issue to any person or authonty,including in appropnate
cases, any Government, withm those temtones directions, orders or
wnts, including wnts in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certioran, or any of them, for the
enforcement of any ofthe nghts conferred by Part HI and for any other
purpose

(2)The powei confeired by clause( 1 )to issue directions, ordeis or

wnts to any Government, authonty or peison may also be exercised by
any High Court exercising junsdiction in relanon to the temtones
within which the
-V r\-r\ tTyyxiKJLiy
/-vl K i dOSCS lOl lUC
111 pdU, -

exercise of such power, notwithstandmg that the seat of such

Government or authonty or the residence of such person is not withm
those temtones

{3} Where any party against whom an mtenm order, whether by way of
injunction or stay or m any other manner, is made on, or in any
proceedings relating to, a petition under clause(1 ), without
/

{a} furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents
m support of the plea for such mtenm order, and
giving such party an opportumty of being heard, makes an
application to the High Court foi the vacation of such order and
furmshes a copy of such application to the party m whose favour sueh
 XI .
order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall
dispose of the application within a penod of two weeks from the date
on which It is received or from the date on which the copy of such
application is so fiirmshed, whichever is later, or where the High Court
IS closed on the last day ofthat penod, before the expiry ofthe next day
afterwards on which the High Court is open, and if the application is
not so disposed of, the mtenm order shall, on the expiry ofthat period,
or, as the case may be, the expiry ofthe aid next day, stand vacated
{4}The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in
derogation ofthe power conferred on the Supreme court by clause(2)
LX of Article 32
 ANNEXURE-P-1

1. (Name) Ramesh Chandrs Pradhan

2. (Residence) Vill Jaleswarpur P 0 Kuanpal Ps. — Dist

Cuttack

3. (Date of birth by Christian era as nearly as can be

ascertained) 4^*^ June Nineteen Fifty Seven 04 06.1957
4. (Educational qualification) IX Passed

5. (Exact height by invasuromsat). 5 fooT 8 inch

6. (Personal mark for identification) A black mole on the

Left cheek

7 (Father's names and residence) Late Sonand Chandra

Pradhan

8. (Left hand thumb and finger impression of Nou-gazetted

Officers).

(Little Finger) (Ring Finger) (middle finger)

(Fore Finger) (Thumb)

9 (Signature of Government servant). 56/- Ramesh

Chandrs Pradhan

10. (Date of entry in Government service). 22.01.2014 FN

11 (Signature and designation of the Head of the Office or

other Attesting Officer) Sd/-Tahasildar Banki

NOTE- (The entries in this page should be renewed or re-

attested at least every five year and the signatures in
lines 9 and 10 should be dated)

(Finger prints not he taken fresh every five year under

this rule)

-—pu^
 ANNEXmE-P-2

OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL

(A&E),ODISHABHUBANESWAR

(PENSION PAYMENT ORDER)

PART-1

Appbcationno. 1018128776 PPONo P0119CTCREV585802

GPFNO. -'-CaseNo SAI-CTC/2081889224/2/19/10/60136100

Date-08 01.2019

Head of accounts 2071- Pension and other Retirements BenejBts

Pension- 8300/- F Pension-I

o Sir,

1 Until further notice, and on the expiry ofevery month, be pleased

to pay the Pension/Family Pension as set out to Shri/Smt Ramesh
Chandra Pradhan
In Part-II of this order, plus the amount of DA/DR as admissible
from time to time thereon after due identification of the
Pensioner/Family Pensioner
The payment ofPension/Faily pension should commenced fium-
01 07 2021

2. In the event of death of Shn/Smt Ramesh Chandra Pradhan

3 family pension of Rs. Per month may be paid to Shn Smt.
Spouse ofthe retire from the day following the date of Shn/Smt

1) Upto 7 years from the day followmg the date of death of the
pensioner or upto 65 years ofthe age the pension etc. whichever
IS earlier

2) Upto 10 years after the date of death of the pensioner as the may
be

3) DA/TI/DR of Rs As admissible is admissible

Subsequent mcrease in DA/TI/DR may be paid at the rates
sanctioned by the Government of Odisha from time by hme.
 4) The income tax where deductible, should be deducted at the
source

To,
The treasury officer Distnct Spl Treasury
Pun, Mahanga

Signature Sr Accounts
Officer/Accounts officer

Application No. 1021185081

Part-n

PAY BAND PART-n

1 Name of Govt Servant -

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan
2 Peon, Scale- 1

6600-52400

3 Office-

Revenue divisional commissioner, cuttack

4 Residential Address At-

Jaleswarpur, Kuanpal Dist- Cuttack

5 Date of Birth - 04 06 1957, Date of appomtment - 22 01 2014,
Retirement - 30062017

6 Class of Pension - Superannuation Pension(mles 40), Net

Qualifymg service - , Last Payment drawn - Rs- 19800
7 Amount of pension paid@ 8300, Commuted Pension-3320/-,
Net Pension- 4980/-

8 Provisional pension paid -

9 Provisional retirement gratuity already paid to be adjusted -
10 Provisional commuted value already paid to be adjusted -
11 Amount offamily pension,- ^
Nominal Rate -

Details offamily mentioned eligible for family pension -

SI No Name Relationship with Govt- Employee, Date of Birth
Umula Pradhan W 25 05 1965

TRUE COPY
 ANNEXURE-P-3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

W.P.(C) NO. 8008 OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF
An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India:

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India:

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application for a direction to the Opposite Party No 1 &

2 to take steps for sanction and disbursement of full
pension in favour of the petitioner by counting the entire
job contract service period of the petitioner as qualifying
service for the purpose of pension and the pension of the
petitioner be revised accordingly and the arrear be paid to
the petitioner within a stipulated period;

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan, aged about 64 years. Son of

Late Sananda Pradhan, At- Jaleswarpur, PO- Kuanpal PS.
Mahanga, Dist Cuttack. .PETITIONER.
 Versus

1. State of Odisha represented through Commissioner-cum-

Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management
Department, At-Lok Seva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, Dist
Khurda, Pin-751001

2. Director, Land Record and Survey Settlement &

Consolidation, Odisha. Board of Revenue Building. Odisha.
Cuttack, Town/Dist-Cuttack. Pin-753002

3. Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt of Odisha, At-Lok

Seva Bhawan. Bhubaneswar. Dist. Khurda, Pin-751001

4 Settlement Officer. Cuttack Major Settlement. At-Jobra.

PO: College Square Town/Dist. Cuttack.

5. Collector-cum-District Cuttack, At/PO/Dist. Cuttack.

Magistrate.

6 Accountant General (A & E), Odisha, At/PO- A.G Square,

Bhubaneswar, Dist Khurda. OPPOSITE PARTIES

The matter out of which this writ application arises

was before this Hon ble Court in any form save and except
W.P.(C) No 5421 of 2022 disposed of on 28.2 2022
 7-S
To
Hon'ble The Chief Justice and His Lordships
Companion Justices of Orissa High Court.

The present application filed by above named

petitioner

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

The petitioner is a retired Peon of the Office of the

Tahasildar Banki under Revenue Department Initially he
was given appointment as a job contract Chaimman in the
year 1978 i.e on 4.3 1978. He continued as such till
21.01.2014 and thereafter on 22 01 2014 his services
were brought over to regular establishment vide office
order No.3587/Estt. Dt 31 12 2013 and finally he was
given retirement in the year 2017. After retirement the
authority has sanctioned only minimum pension in favour
of the petitioner Though the petitioner has rendered total
43 years of continuous service but the Opposite Parties
have not taken account of the entire job contract service
period rendered by the petitioner Hence the petitioner
has filed this case for grant and sanction of full pension by
counting the entire service period rendered by the
petitioner under job contract establishment as well as
regular establishment. It is submitted here that in case of
other employees namely Bhagaban Patanaik, Dukhisyam
Panigrahi and Nityananda Biswal and many others the
Opposite Parties have taken into account of their entire
 job contract service period rendered in job contract
establishment whereas in the case of the petitioner, the
Opposite Parties have not taken into account as a result
the petitioner is getting only minimum pension The
petitioner has been discriminated. Hence the petitioner
has prayed before this Hon'ble Court for sanction of full
pension by counting the entire job contract service
rendered by the petitioner as qualifying service along with
regular service and the petitioner be given all other
financial and consequential benefit.

2 That the petitioner is a permanent citizen of India residing

within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and
the cause of action arises within the said territorial
jurisdiction

3. The petitioner was initially joined/appointed as a job

contract chamman in a particular scale of pay by the
Settlement Officer Cuttack. After his joining he was
discharging his duty to the full satisfaction of the
authority. That though the petitioner was working in the
job contract employee but he was getting his pay DA
ADA and other allowances from the Government like a
regular Government servant except house rent allowance.

4. That in the year 2014 i.e. on 22.01 2014, the services of

the petitioner was brought over to regular establishment
 So

and the petitioner's services was regularized in the post of

Peon In the office of the Tahasildar, Banki. Cuttack and
became a regular Govt servant The copy of the first page
of service book of the petitioner is attached to this writ
petition and is marked as AISJNEXURE-1

5. That while working as such the petitioner was given

retirement from the Govt. services w.e.f. 31 06.2017 by
attending the normal age of superannuation It is stated
that the petitioner was allowed to retire from Govt
service w.e.f 331.06.2017.

6. That after retirement the petitioner submitted his pension

paper before the competent authority and the competent
authority has prepared his pension paper in order to
grant/sanction pension in favour of the petitioner. But it is
found that the authorities have not taken the job contract
service period of the petitioner and the Opposite Parties
have sanctioned only the regular services penod as
qualifying service for pension. The Opposite Parties have
not counted the entire job contract service period
rendered by the petitioner. For that reason the petitioner
is getting minimum pension The petitioner has rendered
39 years out of which 35 years Job contract service period
and three years six month is regular service period. The
total regular qualifying service period is three years six
months and job contract period is 35 years So total
 31
service period is 39 years But the authority has granted
pension only for regular service rendered under regular
establishment which Is cleared from ANNEXURE-2
(Pension payment order) of this writ petition. Annexure-2
IS the pension payment order issued by A.G. where it has
been mentioned that the pension should commence from
01.07.2017.

That the petitioner came to know recently that some of

the office staffs who are similarly placed like the petitioner
got the benefit by order of this Hon'ble Court. The cause
of action arose recently when some of the similarly placed
employee namely Nityananda Biswal and seven others
approached the Hon'ble State Administrative Tribunal to
count the entire job contract service period as qualifying
service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefit.
Their case was allowed by the Hon'ble Tribunal and
direction was given to count the entire job contract period
as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and
pensionary benefit Against that order the State Govt
filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble ligh Court of Orissa
in W P.(C) No.14244 of 2006 The said case was
dismissed on 09 04 2014 Against the said order the State
Government filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The said case bearing SLP No.12573 of 2015 was
dismissed on 13 07 2015. So, the order passed by this
Hon ble Court became final. Thereafter the Opposite Party
 3^-

No.2 wrote a letter vide dt.17 07.2015 for

implementation. As it has been finalized and the entire job
contract period of service rendered under the job contract
establishment has been counted as qualifying service
hence the petitioner's service rendered under the job
contract establishment should be counted for the purpose
of pension and pensionary benefit

8. That the petitioner knew that the job contract employee

of the settlement office who were getting minimum
pension they approached the Hon'ble State Administrative
Tribunal to count their entire job contract service period
rendered under in settlement organization and sanction of
the revised pension and pensionary benefit. The order was
passed by the Ilon'ble Court but the Government did not
implement the said order and the order of the Court
regarding sanction of the pension by counting entire job
contract service period of the job contract employee was
challenged by the Govt before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. In other word the State Government went to
Hon ble Supreme Court of India but the State Government
lost there. Once the law laid down by the competent court
of law that the entire job contract service period rendered
by an employee can be counted as qualifying service and
hence the same shall be made applicable to all the
similarly placed employee and there should be no
discrimination.
 33

9 That the pension has been sanctioned to the employee

similarly placed like the petitioner on the basis of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Court and by that order other
employees are getting full pension

10. That If the job contract period is not counted then the
petitioner will be prejudiced and he will suffer irreparable
loss It will be judicial discrimination.

11. That the authority has not applied his mind properly when
in the same office entire job contract service period of
other employees has been added with regular service
treating all the service period as qualifying service and
they are now getting full pension. Hence there is no such
justification on the part of the respondent, to deny such
benefit to the petitioner The petitioner has specifically
mentioned that one Bhagaban Pattnaik Dukhisyam
Panigrahi and Nityananda Das are getting full pension as
their entire job contract service period has been taken
into account as qualifying service Hence, the action is
violative to Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India
That in one office two typed of law cannot continue and it
amounts to discrimination and not sustainable in the eye
of law
12 That 23 number of the job contract employees filed a case
before the SAT m OA INJo.575/1992 to count the entire job
contract service period as qualifying serv.ce for the
purpose of pension and pensionary benefit. The said case
was heard and the Hon'ble Court allowed their case by
giving direction to count the entire job contract service
period as qualifying service for pension and pensionary
benefit. It is a fact that those employees were getting
minimum pension but now they are getting full pension as
the job contract service period was counted as qualifying
service. So their pension and pensionary benefit was
revised after getting concurrence from Finance
Department. The copy of said letter is attached to this writ
petition and is marked as ANNEXURE-3 dt 29.11 2008.

13. That 24 number of J.C. employees filed a case for

counting their entire job contract service period for
pension and pensionary benefit and their case was
allowed. Thereafter the Under Secretary has given
direction for revision of pension and pensionary benefit
and the same was disbursed, which is clear from the letter
vide AiNJNEXURE-4 29.5 2009 Ji Similarly, m another case
namely in the case of Pitambara Satapathy (after his
death his wife HaramanI Satapathy) approached this
Hon bie Court where the order was passed to give him full
pension by counting the entire job contract service period
treating it as qualifying service and accordingly the order
 35

has been complied which is clear from the letter issued

from A.G. Odisha to 0pp. Party No.l vide ANNEXURE-5
dt.03 02.2015

14 That the law is well settled that benefit of declaration of

law obtained by an employee must be extended to others
similarly placed employees without the need for them to
take recourse to Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Amritlal Vrs Collector. C E.C Revenue AIR 1975
SC 538 has held that when a citizen aggrieved by action
of a govt./department has approached the Court and
obtained a declaration of law in his favour others like
circumstances, should be able to rely on the sense of
responsibility of the department concerned and to except
that they will be given the benefit o that declaration
without the need to take their grievances to Court It is
thus clear that the benefit of a decision rendered by a
Court should be extended to all those similarly situated
The State Govt As a model employer must ensure that all
those officials who are similarly situated should get the
benefit thereof. It is stated that in case of Bhagaban
Pattnaik and Dukhisyam Panigrahi were initially working
as job contract employees in the office of the settlement
officer Ganjam-Koraput Major Settlement, Berhampur
After working some years m the job contract
establishment, their services were brought over to regular
establishment. After their retirement, they approached the
 Hon'ble Tribunal for counting of their job contract service
period as qualifying service so that they would get full
pension though they were getting minimum pension. The
Hon'ble Tribunal has allowed their case and direction was
given to the State Govt. to count the job contract period
of service as qualifying service so that they would get full
pension. This order of the Hon'ble Tribunal was also
challenged by the State Govt before Hon'ble Supreme
Court The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the case
filed by the Govt of Odisha. Hence, the law declared by
the Hon'ble Apex Court became final and it is clear that
the job-contract period can be counted as qualifying
service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefit.
After the order of Hon'ble Apex Court the petitioner also
filed a representation on 08 01 2017 before the authority
but It was in vain.

15. That the Rule 21 of the Orissa Civil Service Pension Rules
provides that, "Except in pensionable establishments,
service in survey and settlement Organization shall not
count unless it is followed without interruption by
qualifying semce" In other words, if it is followed by
qualifying service then the entire period of service under
the Organization shall be counted towards pension All the
petitioners were initially appointed on job contract service
basis and later their services were subsequently
regularized As the job-contract period is followed bv
 regular pensionable service, the entire period of service
should be counted towards pension. The action on the
part of the Opposite Parties is not counting the job
contract period towards pension is violative of Rule 21 of
the Rules. The petitioner was entitled to get full pension
counting the job contract period as qualifying service

16 That this Hon'ble Court in similarly circumstance cases

have been pleased to allow counting the job contract
period as qualifying service The Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India also confirmed the judgment of this Hon'ble
Court. The petitioner's case being similar hence he is also
entitled to the same relief.

17 That against this discriminate, the petitioner approached

the Opposite Party No 4 but the Opposite Party No.4 did
not take any step. Thereafter the petitioner requested the
Opposite Party No 2 about the injustice caused to hit but
he remained silent. Recently this Hon'ble Court has also
disposed of the case of the several employees They are
Sisir Mohanty, Jagannath Prusty, Natabar Padhiary and
many others

18. That recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid
down the law that while accessing quantum of pension,
the State authority was not denied the benefit of earlier
service rendered under non pensionable service The
 3^

benefit of service rendered as a non pensionable service

period would thus, the liable to be counted for
determining the pensionary benefit The said case was
reported in (2020) 8 SCC 106 But m the case at hand the
Opposite Parties did not count the service period rendered
by the petitioner under job contract establishment. It is
stated here that pension is a right vested in a Govt
servant and is not a bounty payable at the will and
pleasure of the Govt. As also the pension is social welfare
measure and post retirement entitlement

19. That the petitioner has no other alternative efficacious

remedy available except approaching this Hon'ble Court
under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

PRAYER

Under such circumstances, it is humbly prayed that

this Hon ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit the
case and issue notice to the Opposite Parties to file their
show cause as to why the case of the petitioner shall not
be allowed and after hearing the parties, the case of the
petitioner be allowed.

And direction be given to the Opposite Party No 1 &

2 to count the entire job contract service period of the
petitioner as qualifying service towards pension and
 3^

pensionary benefit and the petitioner be given full pension

by revising the pension of the petitioner and the arrear to
that effect be paid to the petitioner within a stipulated
period:

And pass any other order(s) direction(s) as this

Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice

And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in

duty bound ever pray.

By the petitioner through

Advocate
Cuttack

DATE

AFFIDAVIT

I Ramesh Chandra Pradhan, aged about 64 years

Son of Late Sananda Pradhan, At-Jaleswarpur PO,
Kuanpal PS. Mahanga, Dist. Cuttack, do hereby solemnly
affirm and state as follows -

1) That I am the petitioner in this case.

 Ho
2) That the facts stated above are true to the best of
my
knowledge and belief

DEPONENT

Identified by
Advocate

certificatf
Certified that due to non-availability of cartridge
papers thick white A4 papers arc used

(NILAMADHAB SARKAR)
Advocate
B C.E. No.O-440/1992
Mob- 9438180192
CUTTACK.
DATE:

1>'^ j-yi

True Copy
 Ml
ANNEXURE-P-4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.8008 of 2022

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan , Petitioner

Mr R.C. Mohapatra, Advocate
Versus
State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties
Mr Y.S.P. Babu, A.G.A.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

ORDER
25.04.2022

1 This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

counsel for the State

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

for a direction to the Opposite Party Nos 1 and 2 to count
the Job Contract Service period of the petitioner as
qualifying service towards pension and pensionary benefit
and as such, the petitioner be extended the benefit of full
pension by revising the pension payable to the petitioner
and further on the basis of appropriate calculation the
arrear as well as current pensionary benefits be fixed,
sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the petitioner within
a stipulated period of time
 Ml-
The case of the petitioner, as culled out from the writ
petition, IS that the petitioner is a retired Peon of the
office of the Tahasildar, Banki under the Revenue
Department, Government of Odisha. Initially the
petitioner was appointed as a job contract Chainman in
the year 1978 i e on 04 03.1978 and thereafter on
22.01 2014 his services were brought over to the regular
establishment vide Office Order No.3578/Estt Dated
31.12 2013 Thereafter, the petitioner has retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation in the year
2017 After retirement, the petitioner has been sanctioned
and disbursed with only minimum pension. Although the
petitioner has rendered in total 43 years of continuous
service, however, the authorities have not taken into
consideration the entire service period of the petitioner
while calculating the pensionary benefits payable to the
petitioner. As such, the petitioner has filed the present
\A/nt* npflhmn hn rnnciH^ar 1hie
- I-^'- - •— 11^
eor\/i/^^ pCl~iv/VJ
^ owi
p-kOLr>'-^^ Oinj 4-^
LC/

pay the full pension to the petitioner. ^

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has rendered in total 43 years of continues
service However, he was brought over to the regular
establishment only w.e.f. 22.01 2014 It is further
submitted by learned counsel for the"" petitioner that
persons similarly placed, namely, Bhagaban Patanaik,
Dukhisyam Panigrahi, Nityananda Biswal and many others
have been extended the benefit of full pension by taking
into consideration their entire job contract service period.
However, the petitioner has been sanctioned and paid
minimum pension after rendering 43 years of service.
Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been grossly discriminated against and
that the conduct of the Opposite Parties are violative of
principle as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. It IS further submitted by leamed counsel for the
petitioner that the authorities by their conduct have
created two different classes of employees within the
same class i.e by extending the benefit of full pension to
one group of employees, who are initially engaged in job
contract service while at the same time denying such
benefit to another group of job contract employees and
only giving them minimum pension He further contended
that such conducts of the authorities are grossly illegal,
arbitrary and discriminatory and as such, the same calls
for interference by this Court.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate

representing the Opposite Parties submits that the
petitioner no doubt was initially appointed in the year
1978 as a job contract Chamman in the Cuttack
Settlement Office, however, he further submits that the
petitioner was continuing in job contract service till his
 Ml)
regularization in the regular establishment vide office
order dated 3578/Estt. Dated 03.12 2013 Therefore,
learned Additional Government Advocate submits that by
taking into consideration the service rendered by the
petitioner in the regular establishment, the petitioner is
not eligible to get full pension. He further submits that by
applying the law laid down by this court as well as by
HonT)le Apex Court, the petitioner has been extended the
benefit of minimum pension by taking into consideration ^
as much of his job contract period towards qualifying
period as is required to sanction and disburse the
minimum pension to the petitioner as provided under the
OCS Pension Rules, 1992,

7 In such >view of.the matter, learned Additional

Government Advocate submits that the Opposite Parties
have not committed any illegality by not extending the full
pension to the petitioner by taking into consideration the
onhiro
^ ^ ^ inh r'nni-rar+ psi lovi r\f 1.1 iC pc^ui^iui id' anci a"D

such he urges that the writ petition filed by the petitioner

IS completely misconceive and-t+ie same-is liable-to-be
dismissed.

8 Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand,

draws the attention of this Court to the order dated
24.03,1992 passed by this Court in 0 J C No 2147 of
1991 whereunder the petitioner, who was in job contract
service has been extended the pensionary benefits by
taking into consideration the entire job contract period
for regularization of his service and pensionary benefits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the
order dated 04 01.2004 passed by the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.3020(C) of 2003
(Nityananda Biswal vrs. State of Orissa and others)
whereunder the Odisha Administrative Tribunal has

directed that the period of engagement of the petitioner in

job contract establishment should be taken into account
as qualifying service and accordingly, his pending and
other pensionary benefits be revised and paid to the
petitioner as has been done in the aforesaid O A. It is
further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the order passed m O.A No 3020(C) of 2003 was
also challenged by the State Orissa before this Court in
W.P.(C) No.14244 of 2006. This Court by order dated
09.04.2014 dismissed the writ petition preferred by State
and accordingly confirmed the order dated 04.01 2004
passed by the Tribunal.

The order of the Tribunal dated 04 01.2004 passed in

0 A. No.3020(C) of 2003 in the matter of (Nityananda
Biswal vrs. State of Crissa and others), which was
confirmed by a Division Bench on being challenged by the
State of Orissa in W.P (C) No.14244 of 2006 by order
dated 09.04.2014 The order dated 09.04.2014 passed by
 this Court was further challenged by the State of Orissa
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave
to Appeal (C) CC No.12573 of 2015 The aforesaid Special
Leave to appeal has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by order dated 13 07 2015. As such, the
order passed by the Tribunal dated 04.01 2014 In the case
of NItyananda Biswal vrs. State of Orissa and others
(supra) has attained finality.

O
9. Learned counsel for the State at this juncture had drawn
I

the attention of this Court to judgment dated 19th April,

2022 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
matter of Judhistir Padhy vrs. State of Odisha and others
in WPC(OAC) No.2276 of 2012. In the aforesaid matter,
learned Coordinate Bench of this Court.was called upon to
deal with an identical issue similar to the one involved in
the present case. The Coordinate Bench of this Court after
analyzing the facts in detail and after taking Into
rnngirlprahinn thp nm\/icinnc r»f Qnh-nilQ A Dulo 1 O /-.f t-P>o

OCS Pension Rules, 1992 has rendered the judgment

holding that all earlier judgment-partlcular-ly the judgment
rendered in Nityananda Biswal vrs State of Orissa and
others (supra) is per in curiam in view of the fact that the
rule 18 OCS Pension Rule, 1992 was amended vide
Notification No 45865 dated 01.09.2001 and Sub-rule (6)
of Rule 18 has been added which specifically deals with
cases similarly placed with the petitioner On further
 scrutiny of the judgment of the coordinate Bench, it is
found that in the case of Nityananda Biswal vrs State of
Orissa and others (supra) pension was payable under the
OCS Rule, 1977. However, in the year 1992 the new
Pension Rule came into force and in view of the Rule

18(2) of the New Pension Rules, employees engaged on

job contract basis have been paid minimum pension in
view of the provisions contained m Rule-18(6) of 1992
Rules.

10 So far as the present petitioner is concerned, he was

initially engaged in the settlement organization in the year
1978. He has been discharging his duties continuously
without any break till his services were regularized in the
year 2014 and finally the petitioner has retired in the year
. 2017. Therefore, from the record, it is seen that the
petitioner has rendered a continuous service of almost 43
years in the settlement organization Rule 21 of the OCS
Pension Rule, 1992 provides for counting of service in
Survey and Settlement Organization and the same
provides that except any pensionable establishment the
service in survey and settlement organization was not to
be counted unless it is followed without interruption by
qualifying service In such view of the matter and taking
into consideration of the fact of the present case, this
' Court IS of the considered view that the petitioner had
rendered his services uninterruptedly since 1978 till his
 MB
retirement in the year 2017 in the settlement
organization Therefore, applying the principle contained
in Rule-21 the entire uninterrupted period of service
rendered by the petitioner shall be counted towards
calculating the pensionary benefits of the present
petitioner

11 After taking into consideration the facts of the present

case and particularly the fact that the petitioner was
engaged in settlement organization as a job contract
employee in the year 1978 and continued as such till his
regularization in the year 2014 without any break, the
case of the petitioner is squarely covered under Rule 21
of the OCS Pension Rules, 1992. Therefore, the entire
service period of the petitioner has to be taken into
consideration while calculating the pensionary benefits
payable to the petitioner. Therefore, the judgment
delivered by this Court in the case of Judhistir Padhy vrs
nf Of^'cha anri r>Un ore /ciir^ro^ ic p r* r* 11/-o I 4-1-*/-*

facts of the present case Moreover, it is submitted by

learned counsel for the petitioner that-similarly placed
many other employees have been extended pensionary
benefits by taking into consideration their entire job
contract period and they have been allowed to draw the
full pension amount Therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that depriving the petitioner to get full
pensionary benefits would be directly in conflict with the
 underlying principle in Article-14 of the Constitution of
India. Since this Court is a Court of justice as well as
Court of equity, it is duty bound to ensure that similarly
placed employees are treated equally and are extended
similar service benefits. Therefore, the conduct of the
Opposite Parties in denying the petitioner full pension on
the basis of the uninterrupted long 43 years of service
rendered by him under the settlement organization would
be contrary to the rules as well as in conflict with the
principle contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.

12. In view of the analysis of the facts made hereinabove as

well as principle of law discussed, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioner's entire service period
IS to be taken into consideration for calculation of his

pensionary benefits and he should be extended the benefit

of full pension as has been given to the many other
similarly situated employees, this Court disposes of the
writ petition at the stage admission with a direction to the
petitioner to file a fresh representation highlighting his
grievances along with copies of the relevant documents in
support of his claim before the Opposite Parties within a
period of two weeks from today. In the event such a
representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the
authorities concerned shall do well to consider the case of

the petitioner and shall take into consideration the

 5"C)

principles of law discussed heremabove and shall consider

the case of the petitioner keeping in view Rule 21 of the
OCS Pension Rules, 1992 and shall dispose of the
representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of two months from the
date of filing of representation by passing a speaking and
reasoned order. It is further directed that in event the
authorities are satisfied that the petitioner is entitle to get
full pension, then the same shall be disbursed in favour of
the petitioner within a month thereafter. The entire
exercise shall be completed within a period of four months
from the date of filing of fresh representation. Any
decision taken on the same shall be communicated to the
petitioner within a period of two week thereafter.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition

stands disposed of

I IrnOD"!" r\f •hKic rirriar /n

wI ^ I Iw I ^I i I vi wV j wi ^lUll UVx W WI 1

proper application

(A. K Mohapatra)
Judge

True Copy
V

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA :CUTTACK

(Appellate Junsdiction Case)

W.A. NO. OF 2023

[Arising out of\V.P(C) No. 8008 of 2022 disposed of

on 25.04.2022]
r-

CODE NO.

In the matter of,

An appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High

Court Rules, 1948 lead with Clause-10 of

the Letter Patent ofthe Patna High Court,

AND

In the matter of

An appeal challengmg the judgment and

order dated 25.04 2022 passed m W P(C)
No 8008 of 2022 by the Hon'ble Smgle
Judge,

AND

In the matter of

State of Odisha, represented through its

Secretary to Govt of Onssa, Department of
Revenue &. Disaster Management, Lok Seva
Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda

Director, Land Records Surveys &

Consolidation, Onssa, Board of Revenue,
Cuttack, At/P O /Dist -Cuttack
 52-

(O P. Nos.1 & 2 in the writ petition)

Appellants

-Versus-

Raraesh Chandra Pradhan, aged about 64

years, S/o Late 'Sananda Pradhan, At-
Jaleswarpur, P O-Kuanpal, P S.-Mahanga,
Dist -Cuttack

(Petitioner in the writ petition)

9
Respondent

Secretary to Govt of Odisha, Finance

Department, Lok Seva Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar, Khordha

Settlement Officer, Cuttack Major

Settlement, At/P O -Jobra, Dist -Cuttack
Collector-cum-Distnct Magistrate, Cuttack,
At/P O /Dist -Cuttack

Accountant General (A & E), Odisha,

Bhubaneswar, At/P O-Bhubaneswar, Dist-
A-vjjuivuia

(O P No 3, 4, 5 & 6 in the writ

petition)

Proforma Respondents

[The matter out of ■"'hich this vvnt appeal arises

was before this Hon'ble Court in W P(C) No
8008 of 2022, disposed of on 25 04 2022]
 53
To

The Hon'ble Chief Justice and His T.ordships

companion justices of the Hon'ble High Court of
Onssa.

The humble memorandum of

appeal of the above named

appellants,

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH

1 That the appellants challenge herewith the order

dated 25 04 2022 passed m W P(C) No 8008 of
2022 by the Hon'ble Single Judge in directing the
present appellants to extend all the benefits in favour of
the respondent m terms of the directions given by the
Courts m O A No 3020(C) of 2003 (Nityananda Biswal
V State of Onssa and others), on the ground that the said
order is completely erroneous and violation of the settled
principles of law as well as the statutory provisions
goveming the field for grant of pension to job contract
employees who have been absorbed in regular
establishment A copy of the order dated 25 04 2022 is
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-1.

2 That the respondent herein had approached the

Hon'ble High Court of Onssa m W P(C) No 8008 of
2022 with a prayer to count entire job contract service of
 5"^
the applicant be taken as qualifying service for the
purpose of pension and pensionary benefits.

3 That the bnef fectual backdrop of the case is that

the respondent jomed as a job contract Chainman on
04 03 1978 under Settlement Officer, Cuttack While
contmumg as such he was brought over to regular
establishment on 22 01 2014 under Collector, Cuttack He
was retired Jfrom service on 30 06 2017 on attainmg the
age of superannuation After his retirement he was
granted mmimum pension only FurthCT case of the
respondent is that as similarly situated persons have been
granted full pension taking into account their job contract
period and regular service, demal of full pension to him
amounts to discnmmation

4 That the matter was taken up on 25 04 2022 and

the Hon'ble Smgle Judge disposed of the case relying on
1 J 1 _ A /'/^\ r>. j j i
me oruer pub«:u ui No (iNiiydndnud

Biswal Vs State of Odisha and others) confirmed by this

Hon'ble Court m W P(C)No 14244/2006 which was also
confirmed in SLP(C) No 12573/2015 and directed the
appellants to extend all such benefits m favour of the
respondent m terms of-the direction given by-the Court-as
mentioned above within a penod of three months from
the date of commumcation of the order

5 That It is pertinent to mention here that as per the

Finance Department Resolution No 22764/F dated
 55'

15 05 1997 the job contract employees appomted pnor to

12 04 1993 under the administrative control of different
departments can be brought over to the posts created
under regular / pension establishment after completion of
10 years' service as job contract employees subject to
fulfillment of certain conditions and stipulations outlined
therem. In the case of Settlement Class-IV Job Contract
Employees Umon, Balasore-Mayurbhanj Distnct Vs
State of Orissa and others (OJC No 2147 of 1991) and
this Hon'ble Court allowed the prayer for regulanzation
and held as follows

"This apart, for the purpose of calculating the

pensionary benefit, so much of their earlier service
penod shall be reckoned, even if there had been
breaks in their employment, so as to make them
eligible for pension"
Keeping m view the judgment of this Hon'ble
Court, the Finance Department issued Office
Memorandum dated 12 12 1997 in which it has been
stated to count the service under job contract
establishment to the penod for qualifying service to make
them eligible for pensionary benefits A copy of the said
notification dated 12 12 1997 is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE-2.

6 That It is further pertment to mention here that as

pnor to this Office Memorandum, there was provision for
calculating the job contract period as qualifying service,
some employees approached the learned State
 <5^

Administrative Tnbunal m different Original

Applications praying therem to grant pension countmg
the job contract penod as qualifying service The learned
Tribunal vide order dated 21 10 1994 passed in T.A
No 11/1993 by referring to Rule 23 of the Onssa Pension
Rules wherein it was held that the same does not prohibit
countmg of past services rendered m the job contract
establishment and that as provided under Rule 23(3), the
Government has ample power notwithstandmg the |
restnctions contained m Rule-23(1) to order the periods
rendered under work charged establishment or the penods
in which an employee is paid from the contmgencies for
countmg towards pension and pensionary benefits
Aixoiduigly tlie Icaiiled Tiibunal gianted benefits and the
said order was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
SLP(C)No 13916 of 1995

7 That it IS profitable to mention here that as per

Rule-18 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, the job
contract employees are not entitled to pension However,
vide Notificadon No 45865/F dated 01 09 2001, Rule-18

has been amended by inserting sub-rule (6) m the

followmg manner
m
"(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in
clause (i) & (ii) of sub-rule (2), a person who is
initially appomted in a job contract establishment
and is subsequently brought over to the post
created under regular / pensionable establishment.
 59-
SO much of his job contract service penod shall be
added to the period ot his qualifying service in
regular establishment as would render him eligible
for pensionary benefits"

Though the aforesaid provision was made under

the O.C S (Pension) Rules, 1992, but the leamed
Tnbunal while decidmg OA No 3020(C)/2003
(Nityananda Biswal Vs State of Odisha and others),
relying on the earlier judgment passed m T A.
No.l 1/1993, held that the period of engagement in job
contract establishment should be taken mto account as

qualifying service The said judgment was challenged by

the State before this Hon'ble Court m W P(C)
No 14244/2006 which was dismissed vide order dated
9 4 2014 by the Division Bench referring to the judgment
ofthe leamed Tnbunal passed in T A No 11/1993

8. That m a similar matter which came up for

consideration before this Hon'ble Court m WP(C)
No 11503 of 2003 wherein this Hon'ble Court has held as
follows

"In our considered opmion, the earlier judgment,

which IS well-reasoned, holds the field as the
subsequent decision in W P(C) No 14244 of 2005
had not referred to the same Opposite parties will
be given benefits only on the basis of earlier
Division Bench judgment in OJC No 2147 of 1991
decided on 24 3 1992, thereby the past penod of
service of the opposite parties, which is required
 ss
only to make them ehgible for pension, shall be
taken mto consideration"

9 That It IS appropriate to mention here that there are

contlictmg Division Bench judgments on this score on the
issue at hand While the judgments passed in OJ.C
No 2147/1991 and W.P.(C) No 11503/2003 lays down
that only so much of service rendered under the job
contract establishment shall be reckoned as would be

necessary for qualifymg service for pension, the other

Division Bench has referred to the order of the learned

Tribimal passed m TA Noll/1993 and OA.

No 3020(C)/2003, both of which have been confirmed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court So far as T A. No 11/1993 is
concerned, the leamed Tribunal on reference to Rule-23
ofthe Orissa Pension Rules, held that there is no mention
therein about a job contract employee bemg subsequently
brought to the regular establishment and held that the job
contract employees who have been brought over to the
regular establishment, the pension rules does not prohibit
counting of past services rendered in the job contract
establishment '1 hough llie leamed Tribunal referred to
the decision of this Hon'ble Court m O J C. ^
No.2147/1991 but directed to count the past service
rendered by the petitioner m job contract establishment
towards pension and pensionary benefits Similarly the
leamed Tnbunal relying on the order passed in TjN.
No 9/1993 allowed the prayer made in T A No 203/2003
It is profitable to mention that the leamed Tribunal has
 relied upon Rule-23 of the Onssa Rules, 1977, but by the
time the matter was decided the said Rule has been
repealed upon commg mto force the new Rules i e
O C S (Pension) Rules, 1992 Under the present scenario,
the Hon'ble Single Judge relying on the order passed m
O A No 3020(C)/2003 has allowed the wnt petition and
directed to grant him the benefit as has been granted to
the applicant in 0 A No 3020(C)/2003 The said order is
completely erroneous and in contravention of the settled
prmciple of law

10 That It IS humbly submitted that though the

respondent is not entitled to full pension as he stands on a
different footmg, but the Hon'ble Single Judge has
directed to extend the benefits as has been granted to
Nitya Nanda Biswal m terms of order passed m O A
No 3020 of 2003

Bemg aggneved by the order dated

25 04 2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single
Judge m W P(C) No 8008 of 2022
under Annexure-1, the appellants beg to
prefer this Appeal on the followmg amongst
other,

GROUNDS

A For that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous,

arbitrary, contrary to law and as such the same is liable to
be set aside
 ^0
B For that while deciding the matter, the Hon'ble
Single Judge has not taken into account the specific
provisions made under Rule-18(6) of the OCS
(Pension) Rules, 1992 as the respondent has retu-ed from
service on 30 06 2017 and governed under the provisions
of the said Rules He not bemg governed undo- the 1977
Rules, the direction ofthe Hon'ble Single Judge to extend
the benefits of order passed in 0 A No 3020(C)/2003 is
not applicable to him

C For that the Hon'ble Single Judge failed to 9

appreciate that when Rule-18(6) of the O C S (Pension)
Rules, 1992 speaks that job contract period shall be added
to the penod of qualifying service m regular
establishment as would render him eligible for pensionary
benefits as the same is holdmg the field, the job contract
period cannot be counted as qualifymg service

h ^ ^ /n % ^ ^ ^ ^^ -I - -
JTUl uiok UiC JUVi^lAWilV ilOO UCCM

without refemng to Rule 18(6) of the OCS (Pension)

Rules, 1992, the said order is completely erroneous and is
in LoniTdvennon of ihe staniiory provisions laid down
under the Rules It is settled position of law that no
direction can be issued-by the Court to the authority to do
something contrary to law

E For that the Hon'ble Single Judge while relymg on

the order passed in the case of Nityananda Biswal (supra)
has not taken mto account the ratio decided in the case of
 ^1
Settlement Class-IV Job Contract Employees Umon
(supra) as well as the order passed in W P(C) No 11503
of 2003

F For that the Hon'ble Single Judge failed to

appreciate that in a number of cases the learned Tnbunal
relymg on the order passed in the aforesaid wnt petition,
has dismissed the claim for extendmg the full pension
taking into account the entire job contract period In O A
No 1290 of 2007, the learned Tnbunal has observed as
follows

"As the scheme has been made to consider so much

of penod Job-Contract employment which falls
short of the entitlement, the regular employee to
get pension, the entire Job-Contract penod cannot
be added to regular period A particular person
cannot be considered as a precedent nor can the
applicant claim equality with that mcumbent This
amounts to clamiing counter equality The
applicant does not have any legal nght to claim the
entire penod of Job-Contract service for the
purpose of pension

Whereas, in several cases like OA

No 38/2009 filed by Pnyabhusan Jena Vs State of
Odisha and others, OA No 174/2006 filed by
Shyamsundar Nath Vs State of Odisha and others,
O A No 1828(C)/2004 filed by Hrudananda Sahu
 Vs State of Onssa and others, OA
No 824(C)/2008 filed by Dibakar Behera Vs State
of Odisha and others and OA No 2161 (C)/2004
filed by Madhabananda Biswal Vs State of Odisha
and others, the Hon'ble Tribunal has dismissed the
claim of the applicants for extending benefits of
full pension / family pension taking into account
the entire Job-Contract penod"

G For that it is the settled pnnciple of law that if a

judgment rendered in ignorance of relevant statute of law,
as per the doctrine ofper-incunum, cannot set precedent
This ratio has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of State of Odisha and another Vs. Mamata

Mohanty [(2011) 3 SCC 436] In that view of the matter

the impugned order of the Hon'ble Single Judge in
directing to extend all such benefits in favour of the
petitioner in terms ofthe directions given by the Courts as
mentioned in the order, is not sustamable and is liable to
be set aside

H For that it is the settled pnhciple of law in the

matter of applying precedents that the Court should not
place reliance on decisions without-discussing as to how
the fact situation of the case before it fits in with the fact
situation of the decision on which reliance is placed The
observations of the courts are neither to be read as

Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of statute and that too

taken out ot their context These observations must be
 53
read in the context m which they appear to have been
stated Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a
decision is not proper because one additional or different
fact may make a world of difference between conclusions
in two cases In that view of the matter, the impugned
order is bad m law and is hable to be set aside

I For that law is well settled that a party cannot claim

that smce somethmg wrong has been done in another
case, direction should be given for doing another wrong
If the impugned order will be implemented then the ambit
of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the amendment
thereto will be stmck down and will open the floodgates
to thousands of such employees to come with
undeserving claims and it will become an obligation on
the State leavmg it in a drastic financial cnsis which is
irreparable
J For that the impugned order is otherwise bad in law
and IS liable to be set aside

PRAYER

Under these circumstances the Appellants most

humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to admit this appeal, call for the records and after
heanng the parties be pleased to set aside the impugned
order dated 25 04 2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single
Judge m W P(C) No 8008 of 2022 under Annexure-
1 and further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as
may be deemed fit and proper,

And for this act of kindness the Appellants shall as

in duty bound ever pray
By the Appellants through
Cuttack I
Date Addl Govf*Advocate

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the grounds set forth above are good 9

grounds to challenge and I undertake to support the same
at the time of heanng

Further certified that Cartndge papers are not

available

(o
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA • CUTTACK 6^
LA No. <^7^ of 2023
(Arising out of W.A. No. 13^ of 2023)
In the matter of.

An application U/s 5 of the

Limitation Act,
And
In the matter of

State of Odisha and Others

Appellants/Petitioners

-Versus-
Ramesh Chandra Pradhan
Respondent
To

The Hon'ble, the Chief Justice of

Onssa High Court and his Lordship's
Companion Justices of the said
Hon'ble Court

The humble petition of the

above named Appellants
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-

1 That the appellants/petitioners have filed the

accompanying Writ Appeal challenging the order dated
25 04 2022 passed in W P(C) No 8008 of 2022 under
Annexure-1

2 That the unpugned order under Annexure-1 in

W P(C) No 8008 of 2022 was passed on 25 04 2022
Fherefore, the Wnt Appeal ought to have been filed
within a period of30 days
 ^6
3 That, in view of the judgment of the Supreme
Court m the case of Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation, m reported in (2022)3 SCC 117, the period
of limitation is extended up to 30 5 2022 In the
meantime, the High Court was closed due to summer
vacation on 23 05 2022 and the Courts re-opened on
20 06 2022 Dunng the above penod proposal on bemg
submitted to the office of Advocate General, draft was
prepared and sent for vetting After finalization of the
draft, the wnt appeal was made ready and accordmgly
filed on 9
4 That the delay caused in filing the wnt appeal was
neither intentional nor deliberate but due to
unavoidable circumstances beyond the reasonable
control ofthe appellants/petitioners

5 Thaf, unless the dela^Tame^in filmg the wnt

appeal is condoned, the appellants/petitioners will be
highly prejudiced

PRAYER

Under these circumstances, the

appellants/petitioners most humbly pray that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to condone
the delay^used m filing the Wnt Appeal on any terms
and conditions as may be deemed just and projjer

And for this act of kindness, the Appellants shall

as in duty bound ever pray
 By the Appellants/Petitioners through

Cuttack

Date. 2023
u
Addl OoVl Advouite

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sn Bikash Chandra Mohapatra, aged about 59

years, S/o- Satyananda Jena, ai picscnt woikuig
Director, Land Records, Survey and Consolidation,
Odisha, Board of Revenue Building,
At/PO Chandmichnwk, Dist Cuttack, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as follows
1 That I am the Appellant/Petitioner No 02 in
the aforesaid case and I have been duly
authorized by the Appellant/Petitioner No 01
to swear this Affidavit on his behalf

2 That the facts stated above are true to the best

of my knowledge and belief and are based on

official record

Identified by

dvocatc's Clcrk'of A G's Office i^S^bRDS AND SURVETS

Certificate goARD Of REVENUE,OCHSHA.CUTTACK
Certified that Cartndge papers are not available

u
ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE
 ^8
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Order XXII, Rule 3(l)(a), SCR, 2013]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Under Article 135 of the Constitution of India)

I.A No. OF 2024 85801
IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

State of Odisha & Ors Petitioners

Versus

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan Respondent

AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING

CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

TO

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HON BEE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETTTION OF THE PETITIONERS

ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTEULLY SHOWETH:

1 That, the Pettioners have filed the present petition for Special
Leave to Appeal agamst the final judgment and Older dated
09 11 2023 passed by the HonEle High Court of Onssa at
Cuttack in Wnt appeal No 1356 of 2023 filed by the petitioner

2 That the certified copy ofthe impugned finaljudgment and Order

dated 09 11 2023 passed by the Honhle High Court of Onssa at
 Cuttack in Wnt appeal No 1356 of2023 is not available with the
Petitioners as he has not yet received the same from the copy
agency OfHon'ble High Court

3 That the petitioners are filmg true and correct typed copy of the
finaljudgment and Order dated 09.11.2023 passed hy the Hon'ble
High Court of Onssa at Cuttack m Wnt appeal No 1356 of2023
PRAYER:

It IS, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
giaciously be pleased to

a) Allow the present apphcahon and exempt the petihoners from

filing the certified copy of the impugned final judgment and
Order dated 09 11 2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Onssa at Cuttack m Wnt appeal No 1356 of 2023, and

I b) pass such other and fiirther orders that may be deemed fit and
proper m the given facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS APPELLANT AS IN DUTY

BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

KIRAN KUMAR PATRA

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

DRAWN ON I <2'01.2.C>Zyf
FILED ON-lo 01 2024
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Order XXII, Rule 3(l)(a), SCR, 2013]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

I.A No. OF 2024

85803
m

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOl OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

State of Odisha & Ors . Petitioners

Versus

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan Respondent

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN RE

FILING S.L.P

TO,

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS

COMPANION JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,

NEWDELm

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETmONER ABOVE

NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1 That the Petitioner is filing the present Special Leave Petition

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against impugned
Order dated 09 11 2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Onssa ai Cuttack m Wnt appeal No. 1356 of 2023
 2 That the facts and circumstances ofthe case are given in detail in
the said Special Leave Petition. It is respectfully submitted that
the same may be read as part and parcel of the present
application, which are not repeated herem for the sake of brevity

3 That the Special Leave Petition was filed on 20 01 2024 vide

Diary No 3338 of 2024, The same was returned by the registry
as there were certam defects on 22.01.2024.

4 That the counsel got the clanfications/information/ documents

firom the petitioner on second week of March, 2024. Thereafter
the defects were cured and the Special leave Petition is refiled
today. On account offoregomg reasons There is a delay m fillmg
the Special Leave Petition

5 That the petitioner has very good pnma facie case m his favour
and the balance of convemence also lies in his favour There is
every chance to succeed m the Special Leave Petition

o PRAYER

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it is

therefore most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may
graciously be pleased to.

(a)Condone the delay of, days m re-filmg the Special Leave

Petition against unpugned Order dated 09 11 2023 passed by the
Honhie High Court of Onssa at Cuttack m Wnt appeal No 1356
of2023, and
 1-^
(b)Pass any other order or further orders as this Honhle Court deem
fit and proper under the facts and circumstances ofthe case

FILED BY

DRAWN ON 7.1

FILED ON I

KIRAN KUMAR PATRA

ADVOCATE FOR TBE PETITIONER
 m
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
lA.No. of 2024
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO. OF 2024

m THE MATTER OF

State of Odisha & Ors .Petitioner

Versus

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I Kiran Kumar Patra, Advocate on record for the petitioner havmg my

office at N-145A, LGF, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi- 110048, do
hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under
1 That bemg the advocate for the petitioner, I am fully conversant
with the facts and circumstances ofthe case as such,am competent
to swear this affidavit

2, That I have drafted the accompanymg application for condonation

of delay m re-jQhng the SLP and I say that the averments made
therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and behef

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION ^^
Verified at New Delhi on this day of March, 2024 that the
contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge No part of it is false and nothing matenal has been
concealed therefrom
NOTARY PUBLIC APPOINTED BY
GOVT OF INDIA
G S KHAR°'INPA

Re?
78^
2 2 MAR im EN. N.
OMSt
Ifafvi,
AHESTED 9899422266 DEPONENT
attested
16/04/2024, 15:31 10.25.78.60/supreme_court/officereport/2024/3338/3338_2024_2024-04-19_960.html

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Listed On 19-04-2024

Court No. 6
Diary No. 3338-2024 Item No. 19

Process Id-960/2024

THE STATE OF ODISHA and others

Vs
RAMESH CHANDRA PRADHAN

Office Report of Fresh Cases

1. The limitation period of the appeal(s)/special leave petition(s) is as follows.
Delay Delay
Case Order Petition
S.No. Court State Bench Days Days Re-
No. Date in Time
Filing filing
HIGH COURT WA-
High 09-11-
1 ORISSA OF ORISSA AT 1356- Yes 49 days
Court 2023
CUTTACK 2023

2. The advocate has filed Document(s)/Interlocutory Application(s) as follows:-

Document Filing Verification Page

S.No. Name of Document
No. date Status No.
EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF 08-04-
1 85801-2024
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT 2024
CONDONATION OF DELAY IN 08-04-
2 85803-2024
REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS 2024

3. Similarity found in the present case is based on:

Diary
S.No. Case No. Petitioner/Respondent Remarks Status
No.
1 9259/2023 SLP(C) No. 006879 / 2023 THE STATE OF ODISHA AND @ relied Dismissed on
ORS vs. SURAMA MANJIRI DAS upon order 05-04-2023
AND ORS
(R/p
enclosed)
2 9148/2023 C.A. No. 007711 / 2023 THE STATE OF ODISHA AND referred to Allowed on
SLP(C) No. 011443 / 2023 ORS vs. NIKUNJA KISHORE at page B 21.11.2023
PANIGRAHI
(Order
enclosed)

4. It is submitted that, in terms of Order XV Rule 2, the status of proof of service upon the
respondent(s)/caveator(s) is as follows:-
S.No. Respondent(s)/Caveator(s) Status of proof of service Date of Service
No Information Available

Note:-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

10.25.78.60/supreme_court/officereport/2024/3338/3338_2024_2024-04-19_960.html 1/1
 ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.16 SECTION XI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s).9259/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-07-2021 in

WP(C) No.15763/2021 passed by the High Court Of Orissa At Cuttack)

THE STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

SURAMA MANJIRI DAS & ORS. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.61432/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN

FILING and IA No.61433/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT )

Date : 05-04-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, AOR

Mr. Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Having regard to the basis on which the High Court dismissed

the State’s writ petition, we see no reason to interfere with

impugned judgment. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly

dismissed. However, the question of law, if any, is kept open.

Pending application(s), if any, stand closed.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2023.04.06
18:06:32 IST
DEEPAK JOSHI)
Reason:
(KAMLESH RAWAT)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
 SLP(C) No. 11443/2023

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 11443 OF 2023)

STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

NIKUNJA KISHORE PANIGRAHI ..... RESPONDENT

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The order impugned has been passed by the High Court of Orissa

dismissing the Writ Petition1 simply on the ground of delay and laches

relying upon the judgment/order of the High Court of Orissa in the case of

State of Odisha Vs. Surama Manjari Das [W.P.(C) No. 15763 of 2021

dismissed on 16th July, 2021].

4. Learned counsel for the appellant - State submits that the delay was

only of one and a half years and the issue requires consideration and

hearing on merits. Further, it was submitted that this is not an isolated case

per se for the reason that it has other ramifications as various such claims

1 W.P.(C) No. 13522 of 2019

1
 SLP(C) No. 11443/2023

will have to be dealt with and any order not going into the merits would also

entail financial liability on the State.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to an order passed by

a coordinate Bench in which the order impugned was in similar terms and

the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of gross delay. Having

considered the matter, the Court finds that in the present case, the delay

was not such that it could be termed as gross delay or laches, which were

totally attributable to the appellants. In the present case, the delay was

only of one and a half years and initially when the Writ Petition was filed in

the year 2019 challenging the order dated 04 th December, 2017 and there

was a stay which continued almost for two years and when the matter was

taken up the Court had dismissed it only on the ground of delay.

6. Having considered the matter, the Court finds that the issue is required

to be heard on merits. However, the Court is not inclined to consider the

merits at this stage as the High Court would be a more appropriate forum

for the present for the issue to be thrashed out on merits.

7. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

The Writ Petition stands restored to its original file and number of the High

Court. Both the parties are at liberty to make a motion before the Chief

Justice of the High Court of Orissa for listing the Writ Petition on priority

before an appropriate Bench. The Court is confident that the Bench of the

2
 SLP(C) No. 11443/2023

High Court before which the matter would be listed, shall take up the Writ

Petition and dispose it expeditiously.

8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

..…………………………….......J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

.…………………………….........J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 21, 2023.
PS

3
 SLP(C) No. 11443/2023

ITEM NO.45 COURT NO.13 SECTION XI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11443/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-07-2022

in WPC No. 13522/2019 passed by the High Court Of Orissa At
Cuttack)

STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS PETITIONERS

VERSUS

NIKUNJA KISHORE PANIGRAHI RESPONDENT

Date : 21-11-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kiran Kumar Patra, AOR

Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra, Adv.
Mr. Chandrashekhar Padhi, Adv.
Mr. Sanjiv Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Chandan Maity, Adv.
Mr. Ram Kishan Rao, Adv.
Mr. Surya Kanta Parhi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Adv.

Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, AOR
Ms. Kritika Sharma, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order, which is placed on

the file.

(POOJA SHARMA) (NAND KISHOR)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)