Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1065 (ORI)

Surendra Das v. State of Odisha

2016-11-09

A.K.RATH

body2016
JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This petition challenges the letter dated 10.9.2015 issued by the Secretary, Cuttack Development Authority, vide Annexure-1 whereby the petitioner was requested to submit E.P.F. Pension form for payment of retiral benefits. An ancillary prayer has been made for a direction to the opposite parties to grant pension to the petitioner under the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short, ‘OCSP Rules, 1992’) since he has retired prior to commencement of Odisha Development Authorities (Retirement Benefit of the Employees) Rules, 2015 (in short, ‘Rules, 2015’). 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Driver in Cuttack Development Authority (in short, ‘C.D.A.’). He joined in service on 24.10.1980 under the Greater Cuttack Improvement Trust (in short, ‘G.C.I.T.’), which was later merged with the C.D.A. by virtue of Sec.128 of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 (in short, ‘Act, 1982’). The G.C.I.T. constituted under the Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1956 had adopted Orissa Service Code. The C.D.A. had adopted the same. The petitioner had retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2012. He received pension in terms of OCSP Rules, 1992 at par with the employees working under the State Government. His leave salary and commutation of pension were sanctioned in terms of the Rules applicable to the employees of the State Government. While the matter stood thus, Rules, 2015 came into force. After promulgation of Rules, 2015, the C.D.A. is covered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short, ‘E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952’) so far the employees working under it, who have joined prior to 01.01.2005. The E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952 is not applicable to the employees of C.D.A. in view of the Sec.16(c) of the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952. Pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.552 of 2010, a meeting was convened under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Odisha, wherein the Principal Secretaries of the other Departments were present. In the said meeting, it was decided to initiate steps for formulation of Rules for payment of pensionary benefits to the employees of the Development Authorities constituted under the O.D.A. Act, 1982 within a period of six months. An affidavit was filed in the said writ application. Subsequently a meeting was held on 31.10.2013. In the said meeting, it was decided to initiate steps for formulation of Rules for payment of pensionary benefits to the employees of the Development Authorities constituted under the O.D.A. Act, 1982 within a period of six months. An affidavit was filed in the said writ application. Subsequently a meeting was held on 31.10.2013. The Financial Advisor-cum-Additional Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department presided over the same. It was decided that the employees of Development Authorities shall get the pension at par with the State Government employees. The Govt. of Orissa in Housing and Urban Development Department instead of approving the draft rules framed under Sec.83 of the O.D.A. Act, 1982 issued another draft rules vide Notification dated 14.07.2015 inviting objections/suggestions from the person or authority within fifteen days. The petitioner along with other retired employees submitted their objections on 22.7.2015 seeking withdrawal of the said draft rules and requested to take steps for approval of the Development Authority Employees’ Pension Rules, which was pending with the Government since 1991 for approval. Without considering the objections submitted by the employees, a notification was issued on 11.8.2015 by the Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.123 read with sub-sec.(1) of Sec.83 of the O.D.A. Act, 1982 promulgating the Rules, 2015 vide Annexure-8. Thereafter, the C.D.A. issued office order dated 26.08.2015 stating therein that the payment of pension to the retired and the retiring employees of C.D.A. shall be governed as per the Rules, 2015. By letter dated 10.9.2015, the Secretary, C.D.A. requested the petitioner to submit E.P.F. pension form for onward transmission of the same to the R.P.F. Commissioner, Bhubaneswar for payment of retiral dues of the petitioner. With this factual scenario, the present writ application has been filed. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party nos.2 and 3. The sum and substance of the case of the opposite party nos.2 and 3 is that G.C.I.T. was created under Orissa Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1956. Consequent upon creation of C.D.A. under O.D.A. Act, 1982 all assets and liabilities of G.C.I.T. were vested with the C.D.A. under Sec.128 of the O.D.A. Act., 1982. The sum and substance of the case of the opposite party nos.2 and 3 is that G.C.I.T. was created under Orissa Town Planning and Improvement Trust Act, 1956. Consequent upon creation of C.D.A. under O.D.A. Act, 1982 all assets and liabilities of G.C.I.T. were vested with the C.D.A. under Sec.128 of the O.D.A. Act., 1982. By means of separate notification, the employees of G.C.I.T. were taken as the employees of C.D.A. While the matter stood thus, one Krupasindhu Barik, a retired employee of C.D.A. had filed writ application being O.J.C. No.768 of 1990 claiming the statutory benefits such as Provident Fund and pension. The said writ application was allowed declaring him to be eligible of the benefits of Sec.83 of the O.D.A. Act, 1982. Accordingly, C.D.A. processed the file. On approval of Government, provisional pension was paid to him pending finalization the matter before the Government. Subsequently, number of employees of C.D.A. retired on different dates claimed the benefit. The C.D.A., relying upon the instances of Krupasindhu Barik and the decision of the Authority from time to time, disbursed provisional pension at par with the employees working under the Government, to those employees. The OCSP Rules, 1992 was not applicable to C.D.A. Provisional pension was granted to more than 45 employees of C.D.A. pending finalization of the Rule. As per the practice at the time of retirement, the employees were asked to deposit the employers contribution deducted by the EPF authority along with interest and on deposit of the said amount and/or deducting the said amount from the gratuity due the benefits of pension were extended to them provisionally. The C.D.A. was covered under the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952 since 1980. Accordingly, C.D.A. complied with the requirement of E.P.F. contribution and pension contribution under the said Act. At a belated stage, the EPF authorities required that the employees/workmen engaged with the contractors executing the works on turnkey basis should be covered under the E.P.F. and C.D.A. being the principal employer issued notice to ensure payment of the employee and employer share to the tune of crores. No proceedings were initiated by the E.P.F. authorities against the contractors. Assailing the action of the E.P.F. authorities, C.D.A. filed writ application challenging the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground that it cannot be considered as the principal employer. No proceedings were initiated by the E.P.F. authorities against the contractors. Assailing the action of the E.P.F. authorities, C.D.A. filed writ application challenging the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground that it cannot be considered as the principal employer. It was contended that its employees are not covered under the E.P.F. as they have already been extended the pensionary benefits to their employees in view of the decision of this Court and the same is in better terms in comparison to the benefits given by the E.P.F. authorities. However, the E.P.F. did not extend the benefit of Sec.16 of the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952. The writ application was allowed holding that C.D.A. is not covered under the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952. While the matter stood thus, some of the employees of different authorities such as Bidyadhar Mishra, an employee of Rourkela Development Authority, Basanta Kumar Swain, Nanda Kishore Swain, employees of Bhubaneswar Development Authority had filed writ applications being W.P.(C) No.10038 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.13211 of 2010. The writ application filed by Bidyadhar Mishra was allowed relying on the judgment of this Court passed in O.J.C. No.768 of 1990. In a contempt proceeding arising out of the said writ application filed by Bidyadhar Mishra, the Government was directed to frame rule in respect of the employees of different authorities. Thereafter discussions were made at different time. The Government took a decision to frame a set of rule governing the retiral benefits of the employees working in different authorities. Prior to enforcement of the said rule, objections and suggestions were invited. After consideration of the same, in exercise of power conferred Sec.128 read with sub-sec.(1) of Sec.83 of O.D.A. Act, 1982 on due consultation with the development authorities, the Government framed the rule. It is further stated that C.D.A. being a creature of the statute, bound by the provisions of law and rules framed time to time and comply the instructions of the Government issued from time to time. Rules have been framed in respect of all employees working under different authorities including C.D.A. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is an employee appointed prior to 2005 and as such he is covered under the provision of the said Rule. He was covered under the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952 and necessary contributions under the said Act were deducted and deposited with the E.P.F. authorities. He was covered under the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952 and necessary contributions under the said Act were deducted and deposited with the E.P.F. authorities. Since the provisional pension at par with the Government employees was granted to Krupasindhu Barik, the same was granted to the petitioner on approval of the authority. The C.D.A. has also sent service condition and pension rules for approval of Government in 1997. The same is pending. But then, in view of the decision of the Government and implementation of the Rules, 2015, the said draft rule is of no consequence. Rules, 2015 shall override of such benefits extended provisionally. The benefits extended provisionally cannot confer any right upon the petitioner to claim such benefit consequent upon the operation of the rule. The petitioner being a pensioner under the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952 shall be entitled to all benefits from E.P.F. authorities. It is further stated that Orissa Service Code is not applicable to the employees of the C.D.A. The same was adopted by the C.D.A. in the absence of any separate service conditions, which is pending approval of the Government. The Orissa Pension Rules, 1992 does not have any application to the employees of C.D.A. The specific case of the opposite party nos.2 and 3 is that the vires of Rules, 2015 has not been challenged. The Rule applies to the employees working till 2005. The petitioner was appointed before the cut-off date. Thus, he has covered under the Rule and entitled to the benefit of the E.P.F. 4. An additional affidavit has been filed by the opposite party nos.2 and 3. It is stated that one Krupasindhu Barik, an employee of C.D.A., filed O.J.C. No.768 of 1990 with a prayer to extend them pension, gratuity and provident fund, etc. The said writ application was allowed and it was held that the employees are entitled to payment of gratuity as per Gratuity Act and the relief of pension. It was further directed that the provision of payment of pension shall be made within six months from the date of receipt of the writ from this Court. Accordingly, agenda was prepared and it was recommended to the authority to approve the draft Pension Rule and to send it to Government for approval and to provide pensionary benefit in respect of the retired employees at par with Government rates. Accordingly, agenda was prepared and it was recommended to the authority to approve the draft Pension Rule and to send it to Government for approval and to provide pensionary benefit in respect of the retired employees at par with Government rates. The authority approved the proposal with observation that Government will be requested to communicate the approval of pension rule on the subject so as to avoid litigation in future. Subsequently, Sri Krupasindhu Barik filed contempt application and thereafter Government in letter dated 22.4.1993 approved the proposal for payment of provisional pension to Shri Barik pending final decision of the Pension Rule. Thereafter number of employees retired and they were extended the said provisional pension finalization of the Pension Rule by Government. Provisional pension was granted to the employees at par with Government slab pending finalization of Pension Rule. The matter was again placed before the 91st authority meeting and the authority recommended to extend pensionary benefit under ORSP Rule, 2008. The same was approved by the authority pending finalization of draft pension rule by the Government. While the matter stood thus, the Government in its wisdom brought the Rules, 2015 covering the retired employees to extend them the benefit of EPF pension. In the meanwhile, the Rules, 2015 having been brought into force, the benefit of provision pension cannot be extended to the retired employees, but they are entitled to the benefit of pension as per the EPF Pension Rule. 5. Heard Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Amit Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite party no.1 and Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3. 6. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an employee of the opposite party no.2. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation as per Odisha Service Code. The opposite party no.2 had adopted the Rules framed by the State Government pertaining to the conditions of service for its employees. It was under the obligation to pay pension to the retired employees in terms of Sec.83 of the O.D.A. Act, 1982. Following the direction of this Court, it adopted the Rules as applicable to the employees under the State Government by resolution. Accordingly, the opposite party no.2 disbursed pension under the provision of OCSP Rules, 1992. It was under the obligation to pay pension to the retired employees in terms of Sec.83 of the O.D.A. Act, 1982. Following the direction of this Court, it adopted the Rules as applicable to the employees under the State Government by resolution. Accordingly, the opposite party no.2 disbursed pension under the provision of OCSP Rules, 1992. The petitioner received the pension and commuted pension. Consequent upon publication of the Rules, 2015 in the official gazette on 11.08.2015, the C.D.A. issued office order No.10795/CDA/dated 26.08.2015 indicating therein that payment of pension to the retired and the retiring employees of the C.D.A. shall henceforth be governed as per the Rules, 2015. It also entertained a doubt regarding the applicability of the Rules, 2015, so far as the retired employees are concerned for which clarification was sought for from the opposite party no.1. In the absence of any such clarification received from the opposite party no1, the Authority notified that the retired employees should also submit necessary forms under the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952. Petitioner had received Letter No.11325/C.D.A., dated 10.09.2015 vide Annexure-1, to submit the form at an early date for onward transmission of the same to the R.P.F. Commissioner for release of retirement benefits. He further submitted that on the erroneous interpretation of Rules, 2015 regarding its applicability to the employees, who have retired from services on superannuation prior to commencement of the rule, the petitioner has been deprived of the pension. While the OCSP Rules, 1992 is in vogue so far as those employed under the State Government prior to 1.1.2005, employees working under the Development Authority prior to 1.1.2005 are sought to be brought under the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952. The opposite party no.2 has extended its application to the retired employees, which is in gross violation of the Rules, 2015. The same would cause great loss to the petitioner and inasmuch as the petitioner, who was getting pension of an amount of Rs.11,487/-per month will be eligible to get a nominal sum of about Rs.1,000/-only in terms of E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952. Rules, 2015 do not have any application to the employees who have already retired. Rule 2 of the Rules, 2015 categorically excludes its applicability to the employees, who have retired prior to commencement by restricting its application to the employees working under the authority. Rules, 2015 do not have any application to the employees who have already retired. Rule 2 of the Rules, 2015 categorically excludes its applicability to the employees, who have retired prior to commencement by restricting its application to the employees working under the authority. He submitted that the words “shall apply to the employees working under any authority constituted under the Act” employed in Rule 2 of the Rules, 2015 mean the Rules, 2015 do not apply to the employees, who have retired from services. The language is clear. The Rules, 2015 excludes the retired employees from its purview. Rules, 2015 apply to those employees, who were in service or working under the authority as on the date of commencement of the Rules. Since the petitioner was not an employee and retired from services by the time the Rule came into force, the opposite party no.2 committed a manifest illegality and impropriety in abruptly stopping the pension. To buttress of his submission, he relied on the decisions of the apex Court in the cases of M/s. Madras Petrochem Ltd. and another vs. BIFR and others, AIR 2016 SC 898 and Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and others vs. State of Kerala and another, AIR 1973 SC 1461 and submitted that where the language is clear and explicit, one must give effect to it whatever may the consequences for, in that case, the words of the statute speak the intention of legislature. Taking a cue from the judgment of this court in the case of Cuttack Development Authority vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2009 (Suppl-II) OLR 447, he submitted that a stand was taken by the C.D.A. in the said case that E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952 does not apply to the C.D.A. and accordingly the writ application was allowed holding that the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952 does not apply to the C.D.A. He further submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.552 of 2010, a meeting was convened on 23.08.2010 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Odisha, wherein the Secretaries of other Departments were present. It was decided in the said meeting to take steps for formulation of the Rules regarding pensionary benefit of the employees of the Development authorities constituted under the O.D.A. Act, 1982 within a period of six months keeping in view the new pension scheme of the State Government. Accordingly, an affidavit was filed in the said writ application. Subsequently in the 7th meeting held on 31.10.2013 under the Chairmanship of the Financial Advisor-cum-Additional Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, it was resolved that the employees of Development Authority shall get their pensionary benefit at par with the State Government employees. The petitioner along with other employees submitted their objections seeking withdrawal of the draft rule. Instead of approving the draft rules framed under Sec.83 of the O.D.A. Act, 1982, the Government of Orissa issued another draft rule on 14.07.2015. Without considering the objections of the employees in its proper perspective, the Rules, 2015 was framed. He further submitted that in the case of Bidyadhar Mishra vs. State of Orissa and others, 2007 (Suppl.-I) OLR-543, this Court directed the Rourkela Development Authority to sanction and disburse the pension to the petitioner at par with the State Government employees on the basis of ORSP Rules, 1998. The petitioner is similarly circumstanced to that of Bidyadhar Mishra (supra). Much emphasis has been laid by Mr. Dash on the decision of this Court in the case of Krupasindhu Barik vs. State of Orissa and others in O.J.C. No.768 of 1990 decided on 29.10.1990 wherein this Court held that payment of pension and making provision for provident fund are statutory duties of the Development Authority. The provisions are substantive and absolute. The framing of rules are merely procedural in nature, so as to provide the manner in which and conditions under which the payment of pension is to be made and the provident fund is to be provided for. The right to pension and to the benefit of provident fund is statutory. Accordingly, direction was issued to make necessary provisions in that regard within a period of six months. Pursuant to the decision in the case of Krupasindhu Barik (supra) and the resolution of the Government of Orissa and C.D.A., pension was granted to the number of employees of C.D.A. including that of the petitioner. Accordingly, direction was issued to make necessary provisions in that regard within a period of six months. Pursuant to the decision in the case of Krupasindhu Barik (supra) and the resolution of the Government of Orissa and C.D.A., pension was granted to the number of employees of C.D.A. including that of the petitioner. The authorities from time to time made prevaricating submissions before this Court so as to denude its employees from the purview of pensionary benefits. 7. Per contra, the learned Advocate General submitted that provisional pension was granted to the petitioner by the order of the Secretary, C.D.A. pursuant to the Finance Department Resolution No.P-181/2008, No.3653/F dated 19.01.2009 and the Authority Resolution No.25/34 & No.12/91. A close reading of the aforesaid resolution passed by the Department would show that it has got a specific reference to the previous decision of this Court, wherein this Court has directed that the applicant should be given provisional pension as per the pensionary benefits granted in favour of the Government employees pending finalization of Pension Rules by the Development Authority. Sec.83 of the O.D.A. Act, 1982 provides that the Authority shall constitute for the benefits of its whole-time paid members and of its officers and other employees in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules such pensions and provident funds as it may deem fit. Sec.123 of the O.D.A. Act, 1982 provides the power of Government to frame Rules to give effect to and implement the provisions of the statute. The Draft Rule was framed inviting objections by the authorities. On consideration of the objections, the Rules, 2015 was finally published and it came into force with effect from 11.08.2015, i.e., the date of its publication in the official gazette. Rule 2 of the Rules, 2015 provides that the same shall apply to the employees working under any Authority constituted under the Act. Since the C.D.A. is an authority constituted under the O.D.A. Act, Rules, 2015 is also applicable to the employees of the C.D.A., who are working under it. The word “Employees’ has been defined under Rule 3(b) of the Rules, 2015 which means the employees appointed under the Act and Rule made thereunder. Since the C.D.A. is an authority constituted under the O.D.A. Act, Rules, 2015 is also applicable to the employees of the C.D.A., who are working under it. The word “Employees’ has been defined under Rule 3(b) of the Rules, 2015 which means the employees appointed under the Act and Rule made thereunder. The definition of “employees” clearly clarify the position that anybody who is appointed under the provisions of the Act by the Authority is an employee for the purpose of this Rule and includes the employees who are serving at present and employees who had served and have retired in the meantime. The definition of “employees” does not refer only to the employees continuing right now inasmuch as there is no specific indication that “employees” does not include the retired employees. Learned Advocate General laid much emphasis on Rule 4(1) of the Rules and submitted that ‘1.1.2005’ is the cut-off date. Any employee, who was appointed under the Authority prior to 1.1.2005, shall be covered under the Rules, 2015. The provisions of the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952 will apply to the employees who are appointed prior to 1.1.2005 irrespective of the fact that they are still continuing or have retired in the meantime. Thus any employee, who has joined the Authority after 1.1.2005, shall be covered under the New Restructured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme. The cut-off date has been specifically fixed as 1.1.2005 and has been made applicable to the employees who joined prior to and after the said cut-off date. Hence all employees of the Development Authorities are covered under the Rules, 2015 which came into force on 11.08.2015. Since the grant of provisional pension was an interim arrangement made awaiting framing of Rules under the Development Authority Act; once the Rules, 2015 have been framed, the interim order of grant of provisional pension ceases automatically. The employees of the Authority are governed under the purview of the Rules, 2015. The question of non-applicability of the Rules, 2015 to those employees who retired prior to coming into force of the Rules, 2015 does not arise at all since the employees who have retired, are also employees of the Authority and only because they have retired, they cannot claim that the provisions of the Rules, 2015 do not apply to them. Countering in the submission of Mr. Countering in the submission of Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the interpretation of the words “shall apply to the employees working under any authority constituted under the Act”, learned Advocate General submitted that the words used in the statute cannot be read in a different way and no different meaning can be derived other than the meaning inferred by the plain reading of the language used in the statute and it has to be understood in the same way it intends to and for the purpose it has been made. 8. Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 submitted that the pension may be contributive like EPF pension. The source of pension must be backed by Act/Rule and/Regulation and subject to such condition as may be prescribed by such Act/Rule/Regulation. Sec.123 of the O.D.A. Act, 1982 authorizes the State Government to carry all or any other purpose of Act including the purpose specified under Sec.83 of the O.D.A. Act, 1982. The C.D.A. is one amongst eleven Authorities governed under the O.D.A. Act and covered under the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952 and Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Accordingly, payments were made on deduction of the employees contribution and matching contribution of employers which is continuing as on date. After judgment of this Court in the case of Krupasindhu Barik (supra), the matter was referred to the Government. The C.D.A. extended the provisional pension at par with the Government not only to Krupasindhu Barik, but also other twenty-seven retired employees pending approval of the Rule and requested the Government to frame Rule. The pension to retired employees being paid at par with the Government, C.D.A. filed O.J.C. No.5878/1997 against the R.P.F. Commissioner, praying therein that the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952 is not applicable in view of the provisional pension extended to its employees at par with Government. The writ application was allowed. However, the E.P.F. authority did not extend the relief for want of Rule to be framed by the Government. He further submitted that the Government have framed the Rules, 2015 after considering the objections and suggestions received pursuant to the draft notification. The word “employee” in Rule 2 of Rules, 2015 would mean and include employees retired, retiring and awaiting retirement. He further submitted that the Government have framed the Rules, 2015 after considering the objections and suggestions received pursuant to the draft notification. The word “employee” in Rule 2 of Rules, 2015 would mean and include employees retired, retiring and awaiting retirement. The word “employee” should be given wide meaning so as to cover the retired employees within the fold of rule-4(1) of Rules, 2015. To buttress his submission, he relied upon a decision of the apex Court in the case of Anwar Hasan Khan vs. Mohd. Shafi, AIR 2001 SC 2984 . 9. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the counsel for both parties, it will necessary to set out the provisions of the O.D.A. Act, 1982 and Rules, 2015. Sec.83 and Sec.123 of the O.D.A. Act, 1982 are quoted hereunder. “83. Pension and provident fund-(1) The Authority shall constitute for the benefits of its whole-time paid members and of its officers and other employees in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules such pensions and provident funds as it may deem fit. xxx xxx xxx” “123. Power of State Government to make rules-(1) The State Government, after consultation with the Authority, may make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of this Act and prescribe forms for any proceedings for which it considers that a form should be provided: Provided that consultation with the Authority shall not be necessary on the first occasion of the making of the rules under this section, but the State Government shall take into consideration any suggestion which the Authority may make in relation to the amendment of such rules after they are made. xxx xxx xxx” 10. Rule 2, 3 and 4 of the Rules, 2015 are quoted hereunder. “2. Application—They shall apply to the employees working under any Authority constituted under the Act. 3. Definition—(1) In these rules, unless the context, otherwise requires, -- (a) ‘Act’ means the Odisha Development Authorities Act, 1982 (Odisha Act, 14 of 1982); (b) ‘Employees’ means the employee appointed under the provisions of Act and The Rules made thereunder; (c) ‘Government’ means the Government of Odisha. (2) All other words and expressions used but not defined in these Rules shall have the same meaning as respectively assigned to them in the Act and Odisha Development Authorities Rules, 1983. 4. (2) All other words and expressions used but not defined in these Rules shall have the same meaning as respectively assigned to them in the Act and Odisha Development Authorities Rules, 1983. 4. Provident Fund and Pension Schemes.—(1) Employees who have been employed in an Authority prior to 1st January, 2005 shall be covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 made under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. (2) Employees who have joined in an Authority on or after 1st January, 2005 shall be covered under the new Restructured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme administered by Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority.” 11. Sub-Sec.(1) of Sec.83 of O.D.A. Act, 1982 mandates that the Authority shall constitute for the benefits of its whole-time paid members and of its officers and other employees in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by rules such pensions and provident funds as it may deem fit. Sub-Sec.(2) provides that where any such pension or provident fund has been constituted the State Government may declare that the provisions of the Provident Fund Act, 1925 (Act 19 of 1925) shall apply to such fund as if it were a Government provident fund. Sec.123 of the said Act deals with the power of the State Government to make rules to carry out all or any purpose of the Act. In exercise of power conferred by Sec.123 read with sub-sec.(1) of Sec.83 of the O.D.A. Act, 1982, in due consultation with the Development authorities, State Government promulgated the Rules, 2015. The same was published in the Extraordinary Gazette on 12.8.2015. Rule 2 of Rules, 2015 provides that they shall apply to the employees working under any Authority constituted under the Act. The word ‘employees’ has been defined in Rule 3(b) of the Rules, 2015 means employees appointed under the provisions of Act and the Rules made thereunder. Sub-rule(1) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 2015 provides that employees who have been employed in an Authority prior to 1st January, 2005 shall be covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Employee Pension Scheme, 1995 made under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Sub-rule(1) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 2015 provides that employees who have been employed in an Authority prior to 1st January, 2005 shall be covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Employee Pension Scheme, 1995 made under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Sub-rule(2) of Rule 4 of the Rules, 2015 provides that employees who have joined in an Authority on or after 1st January, 2005 shall be covered under the New Restructured Defined Contribution Pension Scheme administered by Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority. 12. In Union of India and others vs. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vaso De Gama, AIR 1990 SC 981 , the apex court held : “The paramount object in statutory interpretation is to discover what the legislature intended. This intention is primarily to be ascertained from the text of enactment in question. That does not mean the text is to be construed merely as a piece of prose, without reference to its nature or purpose. A statute is neither a literary text nor a devine revelation. "Words are certainly not crystals, transparent and unchanged" as Mr. Justice Holmes has wisely and properly warned. (Town v. Eisher, 245 U.S. 418, 425(1918). Learned Hand, J., was equally emphatic when he said: "Statutes should be construed, not as theorems of Euclid, but with some imagination of the purposes which lie behind them." (Lenigh Valley Coal Co. v. Yensavage: 218 FR 547 at 553.)” 13. In Anwar Hasan Khan vs. Mohammad Shafi and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 2984 , the apex Court held that it is cardinal principle of construction of a statute that effort should be made in construing its provisions by avoiding the conflict and adopting a harmonious construction. The statute or rules made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the other provision to make the provision consistent with the object sought to be achieved. 14. The submission of Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was not an employee when the Rules, 2015 came into force, the said rule has no application is difficult to fathom. Rule 2 only postulates that the same shall apply to the employees meaning thereby the employees appointed under the provisions of O.D.A. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was not an employee when the Rules, 2015 came into force, the said rule has no application is difficult to fathom. Rule 2 only postulates that the same shall apply to the employees meaning thereby the employees appointed under the provisions of O.D.A. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. A conjoint reading of Rule 2 with Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Rules, 2015 makes it clear that the employees who have been employed in an Authority prior to 1st January, 2005 shall be covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Employee Pension Scheme, 1995 made under the provisions of the E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952. Those employees appointed on or after 1st January, 2005 shall be governed under the New Restructured Defined Contribution Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority. The further submission of Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to receive pension under OCSP Rules, 1992 has no legs to stand. The said rule operates in different field. 15. The vires of the Rule has not been challenged. The petitioner has also not challenged the fixation of cut-off date. Though pension is not a bounty, but then it must be shown that the employee is entitled to pension on a particular Rule or Scheme. A Constitution Bench of the apex Court in the case of Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 1782 held that the pension retirees and provident fund retirees do not form one homogeneous class and on the other hand the Rules governing the provident fund and its contribution are entirely different from the Rules governing pension and, therefore, it would not be reasonable to argue what is applicable to the pension retirees must also equally be applicable to Provident Fund retirees must also equally be applicable to Provident Fund retirees. It was further held that the rights of each individual retiree finally crystallised on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remained in case of those who are governed by Provident Fund Rules whereas in case of Pension retirees the obligation continues till the death of the employee. 16. It was further held that the rights of each individual retiree finally crystallised on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remained in case of those who are governed by Provident Fund Rules whereas in case of Pension retirees the obligation continues till the death of the employee. 16. The apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. P.N. Menon and others, AIR 1994 SC 2221 held that whenever the Government or an authority, which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, frames a scheme for persons who have superannuated from services, due to many constraints, it is not always possible to extend the same benefits to one and all, irrespective of the dates of superannuation. As such any revised scheme in respect of post-retirement benefits, if implemented with a cut-off date, which can be held to be reasonable and rational in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution, need not be held to be invalid. 17. Thus Rules, 2015 cannot be cribbed, cabin or confined. The language is explicit and clear. Rule 2 cannot be read in isolation. The entire rule has to be read as a whole. One provision should be construed with reference to other provisions to make the provision consistence with the object sought to be achieved. The rule takes within its sweep all employees, who are continuing and retired as well. The petitioner, who was employed prior to the cutoff date, shall be covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 made under the provisions of E.P.F. and M.P. Act, 1952. 18. Much emphasis has been laid by Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner on the decisions in the cases of Krupasindhu Barik (supra), Cuttack Development Authority (supra) and Bidyadhar Mishra (supra). In Krupasindhu Barik (supra), a Division Bench of this Court came to hold that the right to pension and to the benefit of provident fund being statutory, the Court would undoubtedly have the jurisdiction to issue necessary direction for implementation of the provisions. Accordingly, direction was made making necessary provision in that regard. It was further held that the petitioner is entitled to payment of gratuity. Thereafter provisional pension was granted to him. Accordingly, direction was made making necessary provision in that regard. It was further held that the petitioner is entitled to payment of gratuity. Thereafter provisional pension was granted to him. Pending finalization of the draft rules before the Government, C.D.A. has granted provisional pension to twenty-seven number of retired employees including Sri Barik. Rules, 2015 supersede any resolution made by the C.D.A. or notification issued by the Government granting provisional pension. Once Rules, 2015 has been promulgated, previous orders have been superseded. Rules, 2015 was not the subject matter of consideration in the cases of Cuttack Development Authority (supra) and Bidyadhar Mishra (supra). Those two decisions are distinguishable on the facts. 19. The logical sequitur of the analysis made in the preceding paragraphs is, the writ petition, sans any merits, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall no order as to costs.