Odisha Pension Rules | Job Contractors Not Entitled To Pension For Pre-Regularisation Period Unlike Work-Charged Employees : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that 'work-charged employees' are distinct from 'job contractors' when it comes to pensionary entitlements under the Odisha Pension Rules 1992.Explaining the distinction between the work-charged employee and employees working on a job contract, the Court observed:"There is a clear distinction between the employees who are in work-charged establishment vis¬à¬vis those who are in job contract establishment. The distinction becomes obvious from a bare perusal of sub-Rules 3 and 6 of Rule 18 of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 where it is given that work-charged employees who have worked in the establishment for a period of five years or more without interruption and are subsequently appointed to the same or another post in temporary or substantive capacity in a pensionable establishment, the period of service rendered by him/her in a work-charged establishment shall qualify for pension under the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992. Compare this with the provision relating to job contract establishment for whom it has been specifically stated that in case of a job contract employee, after he/she is brought in pensionable establishment, only that much period as job contract service shall be added to regular service as would make him qualify or eligible for pensionary benefits."Departing from the usual practice of rejecting time-barred pleas filed after excessive delay, the Supreme Court allowed the State of Odisha's batch of belated petitions concerning the distribution of pensionary benefits to employees.Given the importance of the matter as the case affected many employees and had significant implications for the State Exchequer, the Court decided to condone the delay and examine the cases on their merits.However, the Court also reprimanded the State of Odisha for its careless and lethargic approach in pursuing litigation related to pensionary benefits for employees. Resultantly, it imposed costs of ₹1.5 lakh per employee on the state for its inexcusable delays in filing appeals and special leave petitions, which led to unnecessary prolongation of the legal process. "It is not a case concerning a few employees, rather it affects a large number, and in turn, the State Exchequer. It is for this reason that we were persuaded to look into these matter(s), although initially, we were not inclined to interfere, considering the lethargic approach of the State in pursuing these matters, and the inordinate delay caused, which was never explained in any satisfactory manner. The State though kept filing one Special Leave Petition after another before this Court, not in one go but one after another, most of them belatedly, to complete a mere formality. For this reason, many of these petitions have been dismissed on the ground of delay itself as stated earlier, as Courts do not come to rescue those who sleep over their rights. Be it the State. The liability of the State on this issue will be addressed towards the end. Now, since we are taking up these matters, what will be the fate of the already dismissed petitions after our determination, we will address at the end.", the court observed."Consequently, in all such cases the State shall pay an amount of Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand, to the employee concerned. This amount shall be deposited in the account of the employees, or as the case might be, within a period of four weeks from today. This order shall not be made effective till the above amount is deposited in the account of each of such employees.", the court ordered.Background Of The Case The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing the State of Odisha's batch of petitions against the Odisha High Court's Division Bench decision to dismiss their Writ Appeals as time-barred. In this case, the Court decided the long-standing dispute over pensionary benefits for employees who were initially hired as Job Contractors and later regularized in the State of Odisha. The moot question before the Court was whether only a portion of the service rendered by employees as Job Contractors should be counted for pensionary benefits after their regularization or if the entire period of service as Job Contractors should be included in the calculation of their pension benefits.The Odisha Administrative Tribunal ("OAT") held in employees' favor holding that the entire service rendered as Job Contractors would be counted for determining the pensionary benefits post regularization. The High Court's Single Bench upheld the OAT's decision, prompting the State to appeal to the Division Bench. Following the Division Bench's dismissal of the Writ Appeals as time-barred filed after inordinate delay, the State appealed to the Supreme Court.Before the Supreme Court, the State of Odisha, citing Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 18 of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 ("Pension Rules"), argued that only a specific portion of an...

Odisha Pension Rules | Job Contractors Not Entitled To Pension For Pre-Regularisation Period Unlike Work-Charged Employees : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags