Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 589 (ORI)

Prahallad Chandra Das v. State of Orissa

2008-07-28

A.S.NAIDU

body2008
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The petitioner, an erstwhile employee of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation, has approached this Court for issuance of direction to the opposite parties to release his pension and arrear salary pursuant to decision of the Municipal Corporation and resolution dated 13.10.2006 passed by the Govern¬ment of Orissa in the Housing and Urban Development Department. 2. In the Writ Petition it has been averred that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher under the then Cuttack Municipality in the year 1958. He had been promoted to the grade of Headmaster in the year 1970 and then to the grade of Headmaster, Class II in the year 1975. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service with effect from 16.8.1997. His retirement dues like pension, etc. having not been paid he had earlier approached this Court in OJC No. 7216 of 1998 which was disposed of on 14.10.1998 with direction to the opposite parties to grant the pension and other benefits to the petitioner in terms of Government Resolutions dated 23.3.1993 and 2.6.1994 within three months from the date of the order. It is alleged that in spite of the aforesaid order of this Court, no steps were taken by the opposite parties and consequently he was constrained to file a Contempt Petition which was registered as OCRMC No. 44 of 1999. During pendency of the OCRMC, Government of Orissa in the Housing and Urban Development Department took a decision that the benefit of revised scales of pay as applicable to the State Government employees would be applicable to the employees working under the municipal employees and for that called upon the urban local bodies to make an in depth analysis of their income and expenditure and to come up with clear suggestion that they would be able to meet the additional liabilities from their own resources without depending on the State Government. The said decision was intimated to all the Municipalities and urban local bodies by G.O.No. 3906 dated 16.10.1999. Thereafter the Cuttack Municipal Corporation took decision to revise the scales of pay of its employees and to bear the entire expenditure with effect from 1.1.1996 and communicated the said decision to the Director, Municipal Administration by letter dated 2.5.2000, vide Annexure-1. The said decision was intimated to all the Municipalities and urban local bodies by G.O.No. 3906 dated 16.10.1999. Thereafter the Cuttack Municipal Corporation took decision to revise the scales of pay of its employees and to bear the entire expenditure with effect from 1.1.1996 and communicated the said decision to the Director, Municipal Administration by letter dated 2.5.2000, vide Annexure-1. Government of Orissa in the Housing and Urban Development Department on 29.8.2002 however extended the benefit of revised scales of pay to the employees of the Municipalities with effect from 1st August, 2002 instead of 1.1.1996. Being aggrieved by such decision, the Orissa Municipal Employees’ Federation filed a Writ Petition before this Court which was numbered as W P (C) No. 10798 of 2003. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 27.3.2006 and this Court issued Writ commanding the State Government to accord sanction/approval to the recommendation of the Cuttack Municipal Corporation to extend the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1998 to its employees with condition that the Cuttack Municipal Corporation would bear the financial burden in that regard. It was further directed that a Notification to that effect be issued by the State Government within a period of two months. After receiving a copy of the judgment of this Court (supra), the Urban Development Department of the State Government passed a resolution bearing No. 122994 dated 13.10.2006, vide Annexure-4, that Government was pleased to revise the scales of pay of the Bhubaneswar and Cuttack Municipal Corporations with effect from 1.1.1996. It is alleged that in spite of all these, the opposite party-Corporation has not made any endeavour to compute the revised pension and other retirement dues of the petitioner in consonance with his revised scale of pay nor had disbursed his dues till date. It is stated that the petitioner has retired from service since 1997. Long eleven years have passed in the meanwhile. He has been passing his days through stringent finan¬cial difficulties. He has approached the opposite party-authorities several times but in vain. He has further brought to the notice of the Court that due to lack of funds he could not afford proper medical treatment to his wife who was suffering from cancer and she breathed her last. 3. This Court heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials produced. 4. Mr. He has further brought to the notice of the Court that due to lack of funds he could not afford proper medical treatment to his wife who was suffering from cancer and she breathed her last. 3. This Court heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials produced. 4. Mr. B.Routray, learned counsel appearing for the peti¬tioner, submits that due to deliberate inaction of the opposite party-authorities the petitioner is subjected to insurmountable hardship and it is a fit case where they may be directed to disburse the legitimate dues of the petitioner as per the rules with interest thereon. 5. Mr.S.K.Nayak-I, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation, on the other hand submits that this Court in the earlier Writ Petition (supra) had not directed the Municipal Corporation to release any amount in favour of the petitioner. Though a decision was taken in black and white that has not been implemented till now due to financial constrains of the Corporation. According to Mr.Nayak, a right will accrue to the petitioner only when the decision as to revised scales of pay is implemented so far as other employees of the Corporation are concerned and/or with regard to employees similarly placed like the petitioner and, as such, the Writ Petition being premature entails dismissal. 6. In course of hearing, it appears that by Annexure-4, Government was pleased to resolve to revise the scales of pay of the employees of the Bhubaneswar and Cuttack Municipal Corpora¬tions in consonance with the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules vis-a-vis the Fifth Pay Commission Report with certain conditions. The opposite party-Corporation in its meeting held on 8.12.2005 resolved that in consonance with the resolution of the State Government the scales of pay of its employees would be revised and the extra expenditure on that head would be borne by it from out of its own funds. Thus there was no embargo on the opposite party-Corporation not to compute the differential pensionary benefits after fixation of pay of the petitioner in the revised scale in consonance with the Orissa Revised Scales of Pay Rules, and Rules 14 and 14(b) in particular. 7. Payment of pension and other retirement dues of an employee, as has been held in several decisions, is the bounden duty of the employer, and not a bounty. 7. Payment of pension and other retirement dues of an employee, as has been held in several decisions, is the bounden duty of the employer, and not a bounty. The employer has to see that a retired employee who served the organization in the best part of his life gets his retirement dues as expeditiously as possible, so that he is not left on street without funds at the fag end of his life. Lackadaisical attitude of the authorities sometimes causes great prejudice and harm to retired employees, most of whom command the dignity of senior citizen and the nation owes the obligation to respect them. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the facts that the petitioner has retired from service eleven years back, and for want of funds he could not provide adequate medical treatment to his ailing wife who expired in that state, expressing its anxiety this Court directs opposite parties 3 and 4 to take prompt steps to complete the paraphernalia of computing the dues of the petitioner and disburse the same to him within a period of six months from the date of communication of this judgment, failing which the Corporation will pay interest on the sum due to him at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the same became due to him. The Writ petition is thus allowed. Petition allowed.