Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services -- Free for one month.\n\nOrissa High Court\nTapan Kumar Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Others on 7 September, 2022                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK\n\n                          W.P.(C) No.21936 of 2022\n\n          Tapan Kumar Sahu                         ....        Petitioner\n\n\n                                             -versus-\n\n          State of Odisha & others                 ....        Opposite Parties\n\n\n                               COROM:\n                 JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY\n\n                                         ORDER\n                                        7.9.2022\nOrder No\n     01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.\n\n           2. Heard Mr. A.K. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the\n           Petitioner and Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, learned A.G.A appearing\n           for the opp. parties\n\n           3. The Petitioner has filed the writ Petition with the\n           following prayer:-\n\n                      "i. Direct the respondent to extend the\n                      benefit     of    coverage     under    OCS\n                      O.C.S.((Pension)) Rules 1992 and the GPF\n                      (O) Rules 1938 in favour of the petitioner\n                      within a stipulated period."\n\n          4.     It is submitted by Mr. Chhatoi, learned counsel for\n          the Petitioner that vide the advertisement issued on\n          19.5.1995 under Annexure-1, the Petitioner not only made\n          her    application    as     against     the   vacancy    meant   for\n          General(male) candidate, but also his name was duly\n          reflected in the select list published by the office of Opp.\n          Party No.3 on 07.01.2000 under Annexure-2. In the said\n                            // 2 //\n\n\n\nlist and in respect of General (male) candidate, the\nPetitioner's name was reflected at serial No.27.\n\n5.   It is submitted that even though the Petitioner was\nduly selected with her name finding place at Sl. No.27 in\nrespect of General (male), the Petitioner in view of the\nvacancy advertised for such General (male) candidates at\n32 in Annexure-1, the Petitioner should have been provided\nwith the appointment. But it is submitted that instead of\nhis qualifying the test and his name reflected in Annexure-\n2, the Petitioner was not issued with the order of\nappointment and was kept waiting.\n\n6.   It   is   submitted    that     only   vide   office   order\ndtd.8.03.2007 under Annexure-4, Petitioner was provided\nwith the appointment as Junior Clerk. Pursuant to the said\norder, the Petitioner not only joined, but also she was\npromoted to the post of Senior Clerk in the year 2017.\n\n7.   It is submitted that since the Petitioner was appointed\nas per order dtd.8.03.2007 under Annexure-4, he was\ndebarred from being covered under the Provisions of OCS\n(Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938. It is also\nsubmitted that even though the Petitioner was kept waiting\ntill order at Annexure-4 was issued in his favour, but\nperson similarly placed and selected vide notification under\nAnnexure-2,     were   provided      with   the    appointment\nimmediately and accordingly they were covered under the\nprovision of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O)\nRules, 1938.\n\n8.   It is also submitted that since because of the latches\non the part of the Opp. Parties, the Petitioner was kept\n\n                                                   Page 2 of 5\n                           // 3 //\n\n\n\nwaiting and provided with the appointment only vide order\ndtd.8.03.2007 under Annexure-4 even though he was\ndeclared selected in the notification dtd.07.01.2000, the\nPetitioner's claim for his inclusion under the provision of\nOCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938\nneeds favourable consideration.\n\n9.    Mr. Chhatoi in support of his aforesaid submission\nrelied on the decision of the learned Odisha Administrative\nTribunal dtd.19.09.2013 passed in O.A. No.1612(C) of 2011\nand 1613(C) of 2011. In the said decision, learned Tribunal\nin a case arising out of the present selection process held\nthe Petitioners therein to be covered under the provisions of\nOCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938.\n\n10.   Mr. Chhatoi accordingly submitted that the decision\nrendered by the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid case\nsquarely applies to the case of the Petitioner. It is also\nsubmitted that the order of learned Tribunal passed in the\naforementioned case was never assailed by the State-Opp.\nParties and accordingly the same has attained finality in\nthe eye of law.\n\n11.   Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, learned A.G.A appearing for the Opp.\nParties submitted that since the Petitioner was appointed\nvide order dtd.8.03.2007 under Annexure-4 i.e. after\ncoming into the force of the Odisha Civil Service (Pension)\nAmendment Rules, 2005, which came into force w.e.f.\n01.01.2005, the Petitioner cannot be covered under the\nprovisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 as well as GPF(O)\nRules, 1938. Accordingly, Mr. Babu prayed for dismissal of\nthe writ Petition.\n\n                                                Page 3 of 5\n                                 // 4 //\n\n\n\n12. Heard learned counsel for Parties at length. Perused the\nmaterials available on record. There is no dispute that\npursuant to advertisement issued under Annexure-1 on\n19.05.1995,      the     Petitioner       was      duly   selected     with\npublication      of      the    select      list     vide    notification\ndtd.07.01.2000 under Annexure-2.\n\n13.    In view of the vacancy available and reflected in\nAnnexure-1 in respect of General (male) candidates at 321,\nthe name of the Petitioner being placed at Sl. No.27 in the\nlist of General (male) candidates, he should have been\nprovided with the appointment after publication of the\nnotification under Annexure-2. The opp. Parties in their\ncounter affidavit in W.P.C(OAS) No.31 of 2015 have not\nassigned any cogent reason for not providing appointment\nto    the   Petitioner    immediately       after     issuance    of      the\nnotification under Annexure-2 and keeping the same\npending till the order dtd.8.03.2007 was issued under\nAnnexure-4.\n\n14.    It is also not in dispute that some of the selected\ncandidates, whose name finds place in Annexure-2 were\nprovided      with     the     appointment          immediately        after\npublication of the said notification and accordingly they\ncame under the provisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 as\nwell as GPF(O) Rules, 1938.\n\n15.    Though was provided with the order passed by the\nlearned Tribunal in the aforementioned O.A. No.1612(C) of\n2011 and O.A. No.1613(C) of 2011 but submitted that she\nhas no instruction as to whether the order of the learned\nTribunal has been assailed before this Court or not. But he\n\n                                                            Page 4 of 5\n                                      // 5 //\n\n\n\nfairly submitted that similar issue has been held in the\naffirmative by the learned Tribunal.\n\n16.       Be that as it may, in view of the admitted position\nwith      regard    to    the    selection            of   the   Petitioner    with\npublication        of    the    select         list   under      Annexure-2       on\n07.01.2000 and the vacancies available in respect of\nGeneral (male) candidate as reflected under Annexre-1 and\nthe       order    passed       by   the         learned      Tribunal    in      the\naforementioned case, the Petitioner's claim for his inclusion\nunder the provisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the\nGPF(O) Rules, 1938 needs favourable consideration.\n\n17.       Accordingly, this Court while allowing the prayer\nmade in the writ Petition directs the Opp. Parties to extend\nthe benefit of coverage under OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992\nand the GPF(O) Rules, 1938 in favour of the Petitioner. It is\nfurther directed that the Opp. Parties shall complete the\nentire exercise within a period of 3 months from the date of\nreceipt of this order.\n\n18.       With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ\nPetition is disposed of.\n\n                                           (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)\n                                                      Judge\nsangita\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    Page 5 of 5