Orissa High Court
Smt. (Dr.) Minakhi Das vs State Of Odisha & .... Opposite Parties on 30 May, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17066 OF 2019
In the matter of an application under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
..................
Smt. (Dr.) Minakhi Das .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & .... Opposite Parties
Others
For Petitioner :Mr. N.K. Mishra, Sr.Adv.
along with
Mr. N.K Mishra, Adv.
For Opp. Parties :Mr. S.S. Rao, Sr. Adv.
along with
Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv.
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 09.05.2024 and Date of Judgment: 30.05.2024
----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition while calling for the records form the Opp. Parties, issue notice of the RULE NISI to the Opp. Parties in directing them for filing show cause and // 2 // in case, the Opp. Parties fail to file any show cause or file insufficient cause, the Rule may be made absolute by issue of appropriate writ for quashing Annexure-16 and in directing the Opp. Parties to release the arrears of differential pension as well as current pension in full to the Petitioner along with interest @18% from the date of retirement till date of payment besides appropriate compensation. And pass other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;
And for such act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever prays.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner while continuing as an Asst. Teacher in Municipal Girls' High School, Bhubaneswar, basing on an advertisement issued by Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack (in short,"Board") vide Advertisement No.CAD-289, Petitioner made her application as against the post of Subject Expert in teaching of Oriya.
3.1. Petitioner on being found suitable in all respect, she was issued with the order of appointment on 25.07.1995 vide Annexure-2. Petitioner thereafter was relieved from her duties from Gautam Nagar Girls' High School functioning under Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation vide office order dt.23.08.1995 under Annexure-3 and accordingly joined as Expert in teaching of Oriya on 23.08.1995 in the Board. The aforesaid fact is also reflected in the Office order Page 2 of 20 // 3 // dt.15.09.1995 so issued by the Board under Annexure-4.
3.2. It is contended that though Petitioner vide order dt.25.07.1995 under Annexure-2 was appointed, but the same was a conditional one i.e. subject to final decision of this Court in OJC No.2522 of 1995. But after disposal of the matter by this Court, such conditional appointment was waived out by the authorities of Board vide order dtd.02.11.2005 under Annexure-5.
3.3. It is contended that pursuant to the Regulation issued by the Board vide its Notification dt.05.03.1997 under Annexure-12, the period of qualifying service rendered by the Petitioner in Municipal Girls' High School, Bhubaneswar was required to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Accordingly an amount of Rs.29,169/- deposited in the CPF account of Petitioner during her continuance as Asst. Teacher in the school in question along with the interest was deposited by the Petitioner in the Central Pension Fund of the Board as reflected in the Office Order dt.16.03.2009 under Annexure-9.
Page 3 of 20
// 4 // 3.4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in view of the provisions contained under Regulation 22 of Board's Regulation under Annexure-12, though the period of service rendered by the Petitioner as an Asst. Teacher in the Municipal Girls' High School, Gautam Nagar was required to be taken as qualifying service, but Petitioner after her retirement from service w.e.f 31.07.2018 vide Annexure-10 when was not allowed to get the benefit of qualifying service for the period she rendered her service in Municipal High School, Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C ) No.18390 of 2018. This Court vide order dt.15.01.2019 disposed of the Writ Petition inter alia with the following order: "W.P.(C ) No.18390 of 2018
15.01.2019 Heard Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for direction to opposite parties to release her arrear differential pension as well as current pension in full along with interest @18% from the date of her retirement till date of payment.
In the course of hearing, Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that highlighting the grievance, the petitioner has made representation to opposite party no.2 vide Annexure-10 series, but no decision has yet been taken.
Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing the opposite party no.2 to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-10 series and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules." Page 4 of 20
// 5 // 3.5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 15.01.2019, when claim of the petitioner instead of being considered in the light of the provisions contained under Regulation 22 of Board's Regulation, a decision was taken and communicated, placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule 44(1)
(ii) of the Orissa Pension Rules, 1992 and Petitioner was issued with the impugned communication dt.18.06.2019 under Anexure-16, the present Writ Petition was filed challenging the same. Vide the said impugned communication dt.18.06.2019, authorities of Board declined to take into account the period of service rendered by the Petitioner in Municipal Girls High School as qualifying service for the purpose of pension.
3.6. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in view of the clear provisions contained under Regulation 22 of the Board's Regulation 1997, rejection of the Petitioner's claim placing reliance on Rule 44 (1)(ii) of OCS Pension Rules, 1992 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Page 5 of 20
// 6 // 3.7. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions of this Court.
1. Rama Narayan Padhy Vs. State of Orissa & Another, 2006 (I) OLR 293.
2. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa Vs. Sri Jatindra Nath Mohanty passed in WA NO.74 of 2006.
3. Smt. Bishnupriya Dei Vs. Board of Secondary Education and Others, 2013 (II) OLR - 662.
4. Board of Secondary Education, Odisha Vs. State of Odisha & Others passed in WA No.1413 of 2022.
In the case of Rama Narayan Padhy Vs. State of Orissa & Another, 2006 (I) OLR 293, this Court in paragraph-5,8 & 10 has held as follows:
5. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, the question that falls for consideration is whether the Board of Secondary Education (Amendment) Regulations, 1997 incorporating the Pension Scheme for employees of the Board will in any way help the petitioner to get the retrial benefits on and from 1.10.1984 he having retired on 30.9.1984, or from 7.5.1997, when the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (Amendment) Regulations, 1997 was introduced incorporating the Pension Scheme for the employees of the Board. The Orissa Secondary Education (Constitution, Maintenance and Administration of Pension Fund) Regulations, 1997, came into force on the 1st day of January, 1982. There was also an amendment to the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa Regulations called as the Board of Secondary Education Orissa (Amendment) Regulations, 1997 inserting a new Section, i.e., Section-IV, in Chapter XIII. Section IV contains Regulations 20 to 22, which are as follows : Page 6 of 20
// 7 //
20. (1) Every employee retiring on or after the 1st day of January, 1982 shall be entitled either to the benefit of the pension including commutation of pension, gratuity and family pension as applicable to the State Government employees under the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the Orissa Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1993 or to the benefit of contributory provident-cum-
gratuity provided in this chapter, as he may opt. (2) In the case of employees opting or deemed to have opted for the pension scheme the amount contribution by the Board to their contributory Provident Fund together with interest accrued thereon till the date of their receiving pension shall be credited to the pension fund of the Board.
(3) The employees of the Board under the pension scheme shall subscribe to the General Provident Fund Account, which shall be opened and operated in accordance with the provisions contained in the General Provident Fund, Orissa Rules.
21. Notwithstanding the age of superannuation, the period of qualifying service of employees other than the class IV employees up to the time when they complete 58 years of age shall be taken into consideration to determine the quantum of their pension, family pension or commutation of pension. In the case of class IV employees the period of service up to the age of superannuation shall be reckoned for the purpose.
22. The period of qualifying service rendered by an employee under any of the following institutions shall count for the purpose of pension:
(a) Central Government
(b) State Government
(c) Any Indian University
(d) Any college affiliated to any University of the state and aided by the State Government.
(e) Any Educational Institution recognized by the Board and/ or any Research Institutions aided by the State/Central Government and
(f) The previous service in any institution on the basis of which such persons have been appointed in the Board.
xxx xxx xxx
8. The argument of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that there shall be a conjoint reading of Rule 2 (r) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, Page 7 of 20 // 8 // 1992, which defines "qualifying service" and Rule 18 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, which speaks that service does not qualify for pension unless it is rendered in a pensionable establishment post. The interpretation of learned counsel for the opposite parties that the aforesaid Rule 2 (r) and Rule 18 read conjointly with Regulation 22 of the Board of Secondary Education Orissa (Amendment) Regulations 1997 is not acceptable because I am of the opinion that the Regulations of the Board, which ws subsequently amended in 1997 is clear and unambiguous. There is no need to take the help of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 for the interpretation of Board Regulation, 1997 so also there is no need for a conjoint reading of Board Regulation, 1997 and OCS Rules to interpret the former and to decide whether the Petitioner is entitled to get the befit of the amending Regulations and whether his service elsewhere would be counted for the purpose of pension.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this writ application and direct the opposite parties to take the total period of service of the petitioner to be 39 years, one month and 18 days and re- fix his pension along with other retiral benefits from 1.10.1984 and complete this exercise within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment.
In the case of Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, this Court in paragraph-2 & 3 has held as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
2. By a careful reading of regulation 22(e) it is very very simple and there is no ambiguity in the said rule. The said rule speaks that the period of qualifying service rendered by an employee under any educational institution recognized by the Board and/or any research institutions aided by the State of Central Government shall be counted for qualifying service for the purpose of pension, which makes it clear that under the regulation pension shall be payable to retired employee taking the number of years of service rendered in the Educational Institutions. The regulation does not contemplate two types of pension payable to the retired employees. Page 8 of 20
// 9 //
3. The decision in Rama Narayan Padhi's case (supra) has rightly been applied having regard to the undisputed fact that the first respondent joined as Assistant Teacher in Kesinga Vidyapitha on 5.6.1993 which was recognized by the Board of Secondary Education on 19.05.1962 and subsequently promoted as Headmaster on 7.7.1976 he was appointed as Assistant Secretary in the office f the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and was retired on superannuation on 30.06.1997 while working as Joint Secretary of the Board. Therefore, the entire period of service rendered by the respondent No.1 in aided educational institution which was recognised by the Board i.e. from 5.6.1963 to 18.07.1976 shall be taken into consideration in computing the qualifying service of the Petitioner is the conclusion arrived at by this Court."
In the case of Smt. Bishnupriya Dei, this Court in Paragraph-7 & 8 has held as follows:
7. Though, the matter was settled by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court time and again, but then the Board authorities have adopted a discriminating attitude. The law is no more res integra that if a person similarly circumstanced approaches the Tribunal/High Court and gets some relief, the benefit f the judgment ought to be extended to those persons, who have not approached. The Board of Secondary Education, who is an ideal employer, ought to have extended the benefits of Rama Narayan Padhy (supra) and Prabodh Kumar Patnaik (supra), to the Petitioner.
8. As a necessary corollary, the order rejecting the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-4 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to compute the pensionary benefit of the Petitioner by taking into account the past services rendered by her in Ganeswarpur Girls High School excluding the period from 31.12.1979 to 22.09.1980. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ON such calculation the differential arrear of pension from the date of superannuation of the Petitioner will date shall be paid to her within a further period of four weeks and she will thereafter continue to receive the pension Page 9 of 20 // 10 // amount as would be computed as per the direction given above.
In the case of Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, this Court in Paragraph- 3.1,7,8,9,11,14 & 36 has held as follows:
3.1 He further contended that under Rule-44 (1)(iii) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, a Government Servant with Contributory Provident Fund (C.P.F) benefits on permanent absorption in autonomous body, could opt to come under pension scheme, foregoing Government's share in contribution in Provident Fund contribution within one year from the date of his Page 9 of 32 absorption in the autonomous body. Respondent no.3, who was absorbed on 01.08.1981, had not opted in accordance with the said rule. Therefore, he is entitled to and shall receive Contributory Provident Fund for the period he served in Government from the Government and not from the Board. It is further contended that respondent no.3 had claimed and represented to Director Secondary Education on 22.07.1994 for sanction of pension for the period of 28 years i.e., from 1953 to 1981. He pursued such claim from the Government by approaching the State Administrative Tribunal. It is also contended that the claim of past services also could not be established by respondent no. 3, as his claim that his services in other institutions earlier was not pensionable one. As such, there was inordinate delay in filing the case. Consequentially, it is contended that learned Single Judge has committed gross error by allowing the benefit claimed by respondent no.3, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law and thereby, the same is to be quashed.
xxx xxx xxx
7. For a just and proper adjudication of the case in hand, Rule 44 (1) (iii) of the Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992 is quoted hereunder:-
"44. Pension absorption in or under Autonomous bodies.
(1) (
i) Xxx xxx xxx
(ii) Xxx xxx xxx
(iii) A Government servant with
Contributory Provident Fund benefits on Page 10 of 20 // 11 // permanent absorption in an autonomous body will have the option either to receive Contributory Provident Fund benefits which have accrued to him from the Government and Start his service afresh in that body or choose to count service rendered in Government as qualifying service for pension in the autonomous body by foregoing Government's share in contributory Provident Fund contributions with interest which will be paid to the concerned autonomous body by the concerned Government Department. The option shall be exercised within Page 15 of 32 one year from the date of such absorption. If no option is exercised within the stipulated period, employee shall be deemed to have opted to receive contributory Provident Fund benefit. The option once exercised shall be final."
8. There was also an amendment to the Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha called as the Board of Secondary Education Odisha (Amendment) Regulations, 1997 inserting a new Section, i.e., Section-IV, in Chapter XIII. Section IV contains Regulations 20 to 22, which are as follows:-
"20. (1) Every employee retiring on or after the 1st day of January, 1982 shall be entitled either to the benefit of the pension including commutation of pension, gratuity and family pension as applicable to the State Government employees under the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the Orissa Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1993 or to the benefit of contributory provident-cum-gratuity provided in this chapter, as he may opt. (2) In the case of employees opting or deemed to have opted for the pension scheme the amount contribution by the Board to their contributory Provident Fund together with interest accrued thereon till the date of their receiving pension shall be credited to the pension fund of the Board. (3) The employees of the Board under the pension scheme shall subscribe to the General Provident Fund Account, which shall be opened and operated in accordance with the provisions contained in the General Provident Fund, Orissa Rules.
21. Notwithstanding the age of superannuation, the period of qualifying Page 11 of 20 // 12 // service of employees other than the class IV employees up to the time when Page 16 of 32 they complete 58 years of age shall be taken into consideration to determine the quantum of their pension, family pension or commutation of pension. In the case of class IV employees the period of service up to the age of superannuation shall be reckoned for the purpose. 22. The period of qualifying service rendered by an employee under any of the following institutions shall count for the purpose of pension: (a) Central Government
(b) State Government (c) Any Indian University
(d) Any college affiliated to any University of the state and aided by the State Government.
(e) Any Educational Institution recognized by the Board and/ or any Research Institutions aided by the State/Central Government and (f) The previous service in any institution on the basis of which such persons have been appointed in the Board."
xxx xxx xxx
9. Admittedly, the Board had no pension Rules of its own and its employees were availing the benefits of contributory provident fund and gratuity till 1997.
When the Government of Odisha brought an amendment to the Regulations, i.e., Board of Secondary Education Orissa (Amendment) Regulations, 1997, as indicated above, which came into force on 07.05.1997, inserting Section IV to Chapter-XIII, the provisions incorporated in the said Regulations, as quoted above, would show that Regulation 20(1) provides that every employee retiring on or after the Page 17 of 32 1st day of January, 1982 shall be entitled either to the benefit of the pension as applicable to the State Government employees or to the benefit of contributory provident-cum-gratuity provided in the said Chapter, as he may opt. Regulation 20(2) provides that in case of employees opting for pension scheme, the amount contributed by the Board to their contributory Provident Fund together with interest shall be credited to the pension fund of the Board.
11. Needless to mention here, respondent no.3 served on deputation for the period from 02.03.1976 to 31.07.1981 and was continuing in the Government service. For that, Board's Contribution was also deposited in Government Treasury, as required under Page 12 of 20 // 13 // the guidelines for employees on deputation joining from foreign service. Thereby, the services of respondent no.3 from 31.07.1953 till 31.07.1981 were in Government Service, out of which he was in Board on deputation from foreign service from 02.03.1976 to 31.07.1981. He was in Government service till he was permanently absorbed on 01.08.1981 in Board.
14. xxx xxx xxx The definition of pension in Article 366 (17) of the Constitution which is in the following words does not bring out its essential features:-
"Pension' means a pension, whether contributory or not, of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of any person, and includes retired pay so payable, a gratuity so payable and any sum or sums so payable by way of the return, with or without interest thereon or any other addition thereto, or subscription to a provident fund."
Again, the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 defines pension as including gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradiction to gratuity. But the same rule defines the expression "retirement benefit" as including pension or service gratuity and retirement gratuity where admissible. Hence, the meaning of pension as commonly understood in context of service law that a pension is a periodical payment whereas gratuity is a lump sum payment. It has also been observed by the apex Court in U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 630 as deferred salary.
xxx xxx xxx
36. Considering the case from any angle, as mentioned above, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record or any illegality and irregularity committed by the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment dated 20.09.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 10 of 2019 requiring any interference by this Court. As such, the writ appeal merits no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, by confirming the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
Page 13 of 20
// 14 // 3.8. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, learned Sr. Counsel contended that in view of the clear provisions contained under Regulation 22 of the Board's Regulation 1997 and the decisions governing the field as cited (supra), more particularly; decisions of this Court rendered vide judgment dt.21.11.2023 in WA No.1413 of 2022, the ground on which claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned communication dt.17.06.2019 is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court.
4. Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Board-Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit.
4.1. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as an Asst. Teacher in Municipal Girls' High School, Bhubaneswar, she was selected and appointed as Expert in Teaching of Oriya vide order dt.25.07.1995 so issued by the Board under Annexure-2. Petitioner was so selected and appointed in terms of the Advertisement issued by the Board under Annexure-
1. Page 14 of 20 // 15 // 4.2. It is contended that even though initial order of appointment issued under Annexure-2 was a conditional one, but after disposal of OJC No.2522 of 1995, such conditional appointment was waived out and services of the Petitioner was regularized vide Office Order dt.02.11.2005 under Annexure-5 w.e.f 02.11.2005. Petitioner subsequently was given promotion retrospectively on 27.06.2006. 4.3. Even though in terms of the provisions contained under Regulation 22 of the Board's Regulation, Petitioner was permitted to deposit the CPF amount vide Office Order dt.16.03.2009 under Annexure-9. but in view of the provisions contained under Rule-44
(i) & (ii) of the Orissa Pension Rules, 1992 which are applicable to the case of the Petitioner, claim of the Petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court in WP (C) No.18390 of 2018 was duly considered and rejected vide the impugned communication dt.18.06.2019 under Annexure-16.
4.4. It is accordingly contended that in view of the provisions contained under Rule 44(i) & (ii) of the OCS Pension Rule, 1992, Petitioner's claim to count her service so rendered in Municipal Girls High Page 15 of 20 // 16 // School as qualifying service in terms of Board's Regulation, 1997 is not acceptable and her claim has been rightly rejected under Annexure-16 which requires no interference.
5. To the submission made by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Board, Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission basing on the stand taken in the rejoinder affidavit.
5.1. It is contended that not only claim of the Petitioner to take her past services as qualifying service is squarely covered under Regulation 22(e) &
(f) of the Board's (Amended) Regulation 1997, but also the School; namely Municipal Girls' High School was recognized by the Board vide communication issued on 29.12.1986 under Annexure-17 and it is recognized by the Government, as found from the letter issued by the D.E.O, Khurda on 07.09.2015 under Annexure-17.
5.2. Learned Sr. Counsel contended that applicability of the provisions contained under Regulation 22 of the Board's Regulation is no more res integra, in view of the decisions rendered by this Court in series of Page 16 of 20 // 17 // cases, more particularly, the last judgment so rendered on the issue vide judgment dt.21.11.2023 passed in W.A. No.1413 of 2022. It is also contended that the order passed in the case of Ram Narayan Padhy as well as Jatindranath Mohanty & Bishnupriya Dei have been challenged by the Board.
6. I have heard Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. Nitish Kumar Mishra and Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Sr.Counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 along with Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record , this Court finds that Petitioner while working as an Asst. Teacher in Municipal Girls' High School, Gautam Nagar, Bhubaneswar, she was selected and appointed as Expert in Teaching in Oriya vide order of appointment issued on 25.07.1995 under Annexure-2. Petitioner was so appointed in terms of the advertisement issued by the Board under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the order issued on 25.07.1995 under Annexure-1 and after being relieved from Municipal Girls' High School vide Office Page 17 of 20 // 18 // order dt.23.08.1995 under Annexure-3, Petitioner joined as Expert in Teaching of Orissa on 23.08.1995 in the Board as reflected in Office Order dt.15.09.1995 under Annexure-4. Even though initial order of appointment issued on 25.07.1995 under Annexure-2 was a conditional one, but after disposal of OJC No.2522 of 1995, the said condition was waived out and services of the Petitioner was regularized. In the said office order dt.02.11.2005 under Annexure-5. Nothing was indicated in the order under Annexure-5 that services of the Petitioner was regularized as such w.e.f 02.11.2005. 7.1. It is also found from the record that in terms of the provisions contained under Regulation 22 (e) & (f) of Board's (Amended) Regulation, 1997, the period of service rendered by the Petitioner as an Assistant Teacher in Municipal Girls High School, Bhubaneswar is required to be treated as qualifying service.
7.2. As further found from the record that the deposit made by the Petitioner towards CPF contribution while continuing as an Asst. Teacher in the School in question, functioning under Page 18 of 20 // 19 // Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation was deposited by the Petitioner vide Office order dt.16.03.2009 under Annexure-9.
7.3. Therefore, in view of such acceptance of the deposit of the CPF contribution as reflected in Annexure-9 and placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra), more particularly, the decision rendered in W.A No.1413 of 2022, this Court is of the view that the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of qualifying service for the Period she discharged her duty in Municipal Girls' High School is a genuine claim and the same has been illegally rejected vide the impugned communication dt.18.06.2019 under Annexure-16. The rejection as available under Annexure-16 as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable in the eye of law.
7.4. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned communication dt.18.06.2019 under Annexure-16 and direct Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 to treat the period of service so rendered by the Petitioner in the Municipal Girls High School, Bhubaneswar as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits.
Page 19 of 20
// 20 // While taking the said period as qualifying service, Opp. Party Nos.2 & 3 are directed to take consequential action for revision of pension and other pensionary benefits as due to the Petitioner and release the same. The entire exercise, as directed, be undertaken and completed within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of this order.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 30th May, 2024/sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 31-May-2024 13:01:11 Page 20 of 20