Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 107 (ORI)

Mamatarani Panda v. State of Odisha

2015-02-19

B.K.DASH, M.M.PRAHARAJ

body2015
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the applicant Mr. B.K. Routray and learned Additional Standing Counsel Mr. H.K. Panigrahi. The applicant has approached this Tribunal with a prayer to declare the impugned notification dated 17.9.2005 (Annexure-5) and Office Memorandum dated 13.7.2006 (Annexure-6) to have no retrospective effect and should not be made applicable to the applicant on the ground that the applicant joined the service prior to issue of the said notifications. The applicant joined in Government Service as Sub-Inspector of Police on 15.5.2005 when Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India was in force. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after the applicant was admitted to pensionable establishment, Government issued notification on 17.9.2005 amending the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 making it effective from 1.1.2005 since the applicant joined on 15.5.2005 she has to be treated as an employee of pensionable establishment and the amending Rule as at Annexure-5 and the new restructured defined contribution pension scheme No. 30132 dated 13.7.2006 shall not be applicable to her. It is also submitted that similar matter has already been decided by this Tribunal in O.S. No. 348 of 2009 and case of the applicant is fully covered by the decision in the said case. Learned standing counsel though did not dispute that similar matter has already been disposed of by this Tribunal and the issue has already been settled in O.A. No. 348 of 1999, yet it is submitted that the amending rule came into force with effect from 1.1.2005, vide resolution of the Government at Annexure-5, the applicant is to be covered by the new rule. Considering the submission, we note that the same issue with regard to the prospective/ retrospective effect of the amending Rules, 2005, having been adjudicated in O.A. No. 348 of 1999 and other O.A. of this Tribunal, we like to dispose of the O.A. at the stage of admission to which learned counsel for applicant and learned Standing counsel have no objection. In Umesh Chandra Sutar vs. State of Orissa and Others, O.A. No. 348 of 1999, this Tribunal held as follows:- "In accordance with law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above, such retrospective amendment of the rule cannot take away the right already vested to the applicant to that extent. In Umesh Chandra Sutar vs. State of Orissa and Others, O.A. No. 348 of 1999, this Tribunal held as follows:- "In accordance with law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above, such retrospective amendment of the rule cannot take away the right already vested to the applicant to that extent. Thus it is held that Sub-Rule 4 of Rule-3 of Pension Rules, 1992 (amended one) so also the amendment of GPF Rules, under Annexure-B cannot have any application to the applicant. Consequently the order of rejection as at Annexure-7 does not stand and the same is also quashed. It is held that the applicant. Consequently the order of rejection as at Annexure-7 does not stand and the same is also quashed. It is held that the applicant has been continuing in a pensionable establishment and he has right to contribute to the GPF in accordance with the un-amended rules (stated above)." Considering similar issue with regard to the applicability of the amending Rule, Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ananda Ch. Dash and Others vs. State of Orissa, W.P. (C) No. 154333 of 2002 held as follows:- "18. We, therefore, quash the impugned orders by which the representations of the petitioners were rejected arbitrarily inasmuch as without assigning any reason in support of such rejection and direct that the petitioners will be governed by the provisions of the old General Provident Fund (Orissa) Rules, 1938 and the Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992 as it stood prior to the amendments brought into the same and will be entitled to all the benefits, which were provided there-under prior to such amendments. The amendments brought into the above two Rules, will have prospective effect from the date, such amendments were notified." Keeping in view the decisions referred to above, we are of the considered view that the applicant is covered under the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and accordingly direct the respondents to extend all benefits treating her to be an employee of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Appropriate orders in this regard be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this order, the O.A. is disposed of.