Yostna Rani Mohanty v. State Of Orissa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OA) No. 2169 of 2016 Yostna Rani Mohanty ....
Petitioner Mr. M. Pati, Adv.
-Versus - State of Odisha and others ....
Opposite Parties State Counsel
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
05.09.2022 Order No.
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3.
Originally, the case was filed in the Tribunal in Original Application No.2169 of 2016. On being transferred to this Court, the same has been registered as WPC (OA) No.2169 of 2016. 4.
Background involving the case is that the applicant was selected in a duly constituted selection committee and accordingly appointed as MPHW (F) on contractual basis. While the petitioner was continuing as such in the year 2005 the service of the petitioner was regularized and by the time of filing of the Original Application, the petitioner was continuing as a regular employee. While the petitioner was continuing as a contractual employee, State Government issued a notification dated 17.09.2005 introducing a new re-structured defined contribution pension scheme for the new entrants in the State Government service with effect from 01.01.2005. While matter stood above, there arose some doubt in the matter of implementation of such circular, clarification appears to have been
issued to all Departments of the Government vide intimation dated 04.04.2007 indicating therein that the cases of employees would be governed in terms of OCS Pension Rule, 1992 and existing GPF(O) Rules. It is after such clarification is issued, the respondent-opposite party no.3 vide letter dated 20.09.2011 issued instruction to all Chief District Medical Officers of the State directing therein for deduction of G.P.F. deduction of the staff under their control and those who were appointed on contractual basis prior to 01.01.2005 and brought over on regular basis after 01.01.2005. It is pursuant to such developments, petitioner was provided with G.P.F. number and the petitioner was continued to be a G.P.F. subscriber. It is while the matter stood thus, the opposite party no.5 issued a letter dated 28.05.2015 thereby cancelling the G.P.F.
Account number in respect of the employees, who are continuing on contractual basis prior to 01.01.2005. Petitioner being aggrieved by such direction of the opposite party no.5 preferred the Original Application involved herein. On entertaining the Original Application, it appears by interim order the Tribunal stayed the operation of the instruction vide Annexures-6 so far as the applicant is concerned. 5.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on reiteration of the factual background indicated hereinabove giving reference to the documents appended here to further taking support of the judgment of the Tribunal in Original Application No.98 of 2015 disposed of on 19.5.2017 confirmed by this Court in the case of State of Odisha & Others Vs.
Sanjulata Sethy & Others in disposal of W.P.(C).No.22057 of 2019 and further being affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court, attempted to justify the claim involved herein. Learned counsel further also submitted that in another development involving a judgment in similar situation being carried up to Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court in disposal of a batch of SLPs including Special Leave Petition (C).No.23578 of 2012 and dismissal of the State's plea vide batch of review cases including Review
Petition (C) No. 2038 of 2013. Learned Counsel further taking support of this judgment also to the case at hand, claimed above judgment also taken care of in the disposal of Original Application No.98 of 2015.
6.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State taking this Court to the reason assigned in the counter affidavit in justification of the impugned order however did not dispute the position of law involving very same issue not only decided by the Tribunal in the above Original Application but also decided through the decision in Special Leave Petition (C).No.23578 of 2012 and Review Petition (C) No. 2038 of 2013.
7.
Since the claim made here based on settled position of law, without entering into the factual aspect, this Court simply observes the Finance Department orders herein also impugned in the Original Application No.98 of 2015. The Tribunal after taking all the factual aspects involved herein and further taking into the developments through the above SLP(C) and the Review settling the position in disposal of Original Application No.98 of 2015, has come to hold the orders at Annexure-6 also being impugned herein were set aside. For there is no dispute with regard to the position of law on this aspect and as has already been settled through the above judgment, this Court sets aside the orders at Annexure-6 and allows the application directing to maintain the position of the petitioner so far it relates to continuance in the G.P.F. Scheme from the date of his regularization. 8.
The writ petition succeeds.
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge Arun