Summary
In a large batch of appeals by the State of Odisha, the Supreme Court set aside High Court orders directing that the entire service of former job contract employees be counted for calculating pension. Rule 18(6) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 adds only so much job contract service as makes the employee eligible for pension, unlike Rule 18(3) for work-charged employees; the State was, however, made to pay costs for its inexcusable delays.
Issues
- Whether former job contract employees in Odisha, later brought into regular pensionable establishment, are entitled to have their entire job contract service counted for calculating pension.
- Whether the principle applied to regularised work-charged employees (counting entire service) extends to job contract employees under the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992.
- What consequences follow for the State's inordinate and unexplained delay in filing writ appeals and special leave petitions.
Provisions considered
- Rule 18(6), Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992Inserted in 2001, it adds to qualifying service only so much of the job contract service as renders the employee eligible for pension; the Court read it as limiting the benefit, consistent with the High Court's 1992 Job Contract Employees Union judgment and the 1997 Office Memorandum, and noted it was never challenged. (¶¶ 5, 14, 15, 16)
- Rule 18(2) and Rule 18(3), Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992Rule 18(2) excludes non-pensionable, work-charged and contingency-paid service, while Rule 18(3) makes the whole of five or more years of work-charged service qualify on later appointment in a pensionable establishment; this contrast shows the rules distinguish work-charged from job contract establishments. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaWhether the classification between work-charged and job contract establishments is artificial and violative of Article 14 was neither pleaded nor argued, so the Court left the question open. (¶¶ 16, 18)
Held
- The Orissa High Court's judgment in Job Contract Employees Union, the State's Office Memorandum of 12.12.1997 and the 2001 amendment inserting Rule 18(6) all counted only so much job contract service as was needed to make the employee eligible for pension, and rejected the claim to count the entire period; the Tribunal's contrary decisions in Bhagaban Pattnaik and Nityanand Biswal misread that judgment. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8)
- The Single Judge's orders directing that the entire job contract service be counted for pension, based on Nityanand Biswal, were unsustainable; the Division Bench dismissed the State's writ appeals on delay alone without letting the State explain the obvious anomaly. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Though not argued, the Court noted that the three-Judge Bench in Prem Singh held that the entire service of regularised work-charged employees counts for pension, and observed that the two-Judge Bench in Uday Pratap Thakur, restricting Prem Singh to qualifying service, did not appear to read it correctly. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- That relief could not be given to job contract employees because the Odisha Pension Rules expressly distinguish the two establishments: Rule 18(3) counts the whole of qualifying work-charged service, whereas Rule 18(6) adds only so much job contract service as confers eligibility. Work-charged employees are governed by the 1974 Instructions, while job contract employees in survey, settlement and consolidation work are governed by the Consolidation Manual. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
- As no party challenged Rule 18 or argued that the classification between work-charged and job contract establishments is artificial or violates Article 14, the Court left that question open. (¶¶ 16, 18)
- Because the State pursued the cases with extreme carelessness and inexcusable delay, in every belatedly filed matter it was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1,50,000 to the employee concerned, and the judgment would take effect only after that deposit; the State was allowed to seek review of SLPs earlier dismissed for delay. (¶¶ 2, 3, 20, 21)
Result
Delay condoned; appeals allowed and the High Court orders set aside. In all belatedly filed matters the State must deposit costs of Rs. 1,50,000 with each employee within four weeks, and the order takes effect only on such deposit; the State may seek review of earlier dismissed SLPs within four weeks; interim orders vacated.