Rasmilata Mallik v. State Of Odisha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No.270 of 2016 Rasmilata Mallik ....
Petitioner Mr. P.K. Dhal, Advocate -versusState of Odisha and others ....
Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Additional Govt.
Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN Order No.
ORDER
18.07.2022 01.
1.
This matter is taken up through virtual/physical mode. 2.
The Original Application No.270 (C) of 2016 was filed before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. After its abolition, the same has been transferred to this Court which is renumbered as WPC (OAC) No.270 of 2016.
3.
The Petitioner while working as staff nurse was regularized in service vide order dated 11.02.2009 (Annexure2). It is stated in the said order that the Petitioner was initially appointed as contractual staff nurse during the year 2003. 4.
Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that even though the regularization of service of the Petitioner has been made in the year 2009, since she has been engaged as staff nurse in the year 2003 on contractual basis, she is entitled to the benefit as envisaged under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992. Nonetheless, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the office order dated 07.04.2015 issued by the Medical Officer-in-charge of CHC, Umerkote in the district of
// 2 // Nabarangpur, whereby it has been ordered that the GPF deduction of the Petitioner, who was appointed on contractual basis prior to 01.01.2005 and regularized after 01.01.2005 would not be entitled to GPF deduction and in the said order, the GPF deduction has been directed to be stopped from March, 2015 onwards.
5.
Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the Petitioner has cited a co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Julli Bagarti Vrs. State of Odisha & Others, WPC (OAC) No. 1131 of 2015, disposed of by order dated 13th May, 2022. This Court has been pleased to set aside the communication of Accounts Officer of the Office of the Accountant General whereby similar directions were issued and directed to maintain the position of the Petitioner so far it relates to continuance in the G.P.F. Scheme from the date of her regularization. The present case being identical to the said case, the matter requires equal consideration. ` 6.
Mr. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the factual position in both the cases are identical.
7.
In such view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 13th May, 2022 passed in WPC(OAC) No. 1131 of 2015.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(M.S. Raman) Judge Aks