Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 507 (ORI)

Niranjan Sahoo v. State of Orissa

2018-05-04

K.R.MOHAPATRA, S.PANDA

body2018
ORDER 04.05.2018. Heard Mr. B.B. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rout, learned Standing Counsel for the School & Mass Education Department. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.2264 (C) of 2015 wherein the prayer of the petitioner for grant of pension was rejected on the ground that he has not completed the qualifying period of service for the purpose of pension. The applicant, who claimed to have been appointed as a Physical Education Teacher in SMHS, Khalikote on 08.08.1967 and thereafter joined at Govt. High School Serango Gumma with effect from 24.03.1977 and worked till 31.07.1981. Thereafter he remained on leave due to his serious illness and ultimately retired from service from 31.07.1977 .After his retirement when his pension and pensionary benefits were not extended in his favour, he approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.525 (C) of 2013. The said O.A. was disposed of directing the authorities to consider the grievance of the application. However after such order, the Government rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has not completed the minimum period of 10 years of service. The petitioner challenged the same in the aforesaid Original Application. The opposite parties have taken a stand that his service has been verified due to frequent absence from the service. However during pendency of the writ application the service of the petitioner was verified. Without delving into unnecessary factual details, it is admitted by the parties that the petitioner had worked for a period of 09 years 07 months and 06 days. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice about the provision of Rule 47 (3) of the Orissa Pension Rules, which reads as thus : (3) In calculating the length of qualifying service, a fraction of a year equal to three months and above but less than six months shall be treated as a completed one-half year and the period of nine months and above shall be reckoned as two-half years. Since the petitioner has completed nine years seven months and six days, the same shall be counted as per the aforesaid provision which has not been considered by the Tribunal ;while passing the impugned order. Since the petitioner has completed nine years seven months and six days, the same shall be counted as per the aforesaid provision which has not been considered by the Tribunal ;while passing the impugned order. Accordingly it is directed that the aforesaid period shall be counted as per Rule 47 (3) of the Pension Rules. In view of the above, this Court sets aside the impugned order and directs the authorities to take the consequential step for release of the pension and pensionary benefits and complete the entire exercise within a period of three months. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.