KISHORE CHANDRA BARIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point for determination in this case is whether the period of service rendered as an NMR employee under the Govt. of Odisha can be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefit.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially engaged as an NMR employee as Typist on 24/5/1980 as per order of the Superintending Engineer PH Circle. In the year 1998, as per the scheme framed by the Government, the petitioner's service was regularized and he was absorbed as a peon on 23/5/1998 in the regular establishment. The petitioner continued as such till he attained the age of superannuation and retired from Govt. Service. After his retirement, the Executive Engineer requested the Chief Engineer PH, Urban, Odisha to condone the upper age limit of the petitioner by granting post facto approval exercising power under Rule 52 of the Odisha Service Code for sanction of pensionary benefit to him. The Chief Engineer PH, Urban also requested the Government for approval of the condonation of upper age limit of the petitioner. It is stated that such approval being granted, the concerned authority sanctioned pension in favour of the petitioner by preparing the pension papers as per office order dtd. 30/7/2014, but the petitioner was paid only minimum pension. In other words, the period of service rendered by the petitioner under the regular establishment had only been counted for pension and pensionary benefit but the service rendered as NMR employee had not been taken into account. The petitioner was granted minimum pension though he had rendered 32 years of service, which includes 18 years as NMR Typist and 14 years 1 month 7 days as a Peon in regular establishment. As such, the petitioner submitted a grievance to opposite party no.6 on 2/3/2015, which was forwarded to opposite party no.1. However, the opposite party no.1 rejected the grievance of the petitioner on the ground that such proposal had already been rejected by the Finance Department as it does not conform to Rule- 18(6) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short, the "Rules, 1992"). The petitioner thereafter sent a pleader's notice to the opposite party no.1 but the same was also rejected. According to the petitioner, the work- charged employees, who have rendered five years continuous service, are to be regularized in the vacant post. In the case at hand, though posts were lying vacant, the concerned authority did not take any step for regularization of service of the petitioner after five years service in the work charged establishment. The petitioner claims that he should have been regularized w.e.f. 1985.

(3.) A counter has been filed on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 to 5. While admitting the facts relating to engagement of the petitioner initially in the NMR establishment and subsequently his regularization as a Peon, it is stated that the petitioner was never absorbed under the work charged establishment, but was absorbed under regular establishment as night watchman-cum- sweeper and subsequently as peon since 23/5/1998. It is further stated that the petitioner's grievance was rejected as the same has no merit because it does not conform to Rule 18(6) of the Rules, 1992 with due concurrence of the Finance Department.