Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 618 (ORI)

State of Orissa v. Chhanda Charan Mohapatra

2006-08-24

I.M.QUDDUSI, PRADIP MOHANTY

body2006
JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the State of Orissa challenging the order dated 28.01.2005 passed by the Orissa Admin¬istrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A.No. 2471 (C) of 2000. The said O.A. was filed by the opposite party for a direc¬tion to the instant petitioners to treat the period of service rendered by him under the Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation (for short, “the OSCTC”), i.e., from 07.08.1967 to 11.12.1984 as pensionary service, revise his retiral benefits accordingly and pay the same to him. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has directed the present petitioners to consider the option of the applicant-opposite party on his depositing the entire C.P.F. amount with simple interest from the date of re¬ceipt till deposit. The amount was to be deposited within two months whereafter the present petitioners were to take action regarding revision of pension along with other terminal benefits taking into account the services the applicant-opposite party had rendered in the OSCTC. 2. Undisputedly, the opposite party was working in the OSCTC from 07.08.1967. On 11.12.1984, while he was working as a Senior Assistant, the Corporation became sick, and as per the decision of the Government, the employees were given posting in different departments of the State Government. He was adjusted as a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, where he joined in the forenoon of 12.12.1984. He retired on superannuation on 30.06.2003. Much prior to that, i.e., on 07.01.2000, he had made a representation to the authori¬ties to count his past service in the Corporation for the purpose of calculation of pension and other terminal benefits. No order having been passed on the said representation, the opposite party approached the Tribunal by filing the O.A. and the Tribunal issued directions as mentioned above. 3. The record reveals that in case of six employees, who were working in the same Corporation and subsequently absorbed in different departments of the Government, their services have been counted for the purpose of pension. The present opposite party has also deposited the C.P.F. amount along with interest pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal. 3. The record reveals that in case of six employees, who were working in the same Corporation and subsequently absorbed in different departments of the Government, their services have been counted for the purpose of pension. The present opposite party has also deposited the C.P.F. amount along with interest pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal. Since similar benefits have been made available to other employees standing on the same footing with the opposite party, we are not inclined to examine the various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. We are of the opinion that it will be unjust and inequitable to deny the said benefits to the opposite party. Now that the opposite party has already complied with the order of the Tribunal by depositing the amount, we direct the petitioners to make compliance of the other part of the order of the Tribunal within four months from today. 4. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. I. M. QUDDUSI, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.