Rakia Imran
On 24th February, 2025, a Division-Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, was set with reviewing a set of petitions filed by the State of Odisha, challenging the Orissa High Court’s Division Bench verdict that dismissed their Writ Appeals due to a procedural delay. The case ultimately determined the outcome of a prolonged legal conflict over pension benefits for employees who had started their service as Job Contractors and were later granted regular employment status in Odisha’s government sector.
The Supreme Court of India has drawn a significant distinction between ‘work-charged employees’ and ‘job contractors’ in relation to pension entitlements under the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992. This clarification comes in response to numerous delayed petitions from Odisha concerning pension benefits.
In differentiating between work-charged employees and those working under a job contract, the Supreme Court referred to sub-Rules 3 and 6 of Rule 18 of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992, which provide a legal framework for understanding their pension eligibility. The Court observed that employees in a work-charged establishment who have rendered at least five years of uninterrupted service will have this period considered for pension purposes, provided they are later appointed to a pensionable establishment. Such an appointment can be in the same post or another, and it may be on a temporal basis. This provision highlights the fundamental difference between work-charged employees, whose past service can contribute to their pension benefits, and those working under job contracts, who do not receive the same consideration under these pension rules.
“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,” the Court added.
The Supreme Court permitted the delayed petitions filed by Odisha to be examined on their merits. This decision was justified by the large number of employees affected and the financial consequences for the state.
Despite agreeing to consider Odisha’s former petitions, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the State for its delayed approach in dealing with pension-related legal issues. Taking a firm stance against the unnecessary delays caused by these extended appeals and petitions, the Court imposed a financial penalty on the State of Rs 1.5 lakh per employee for the prolonged legal case.
The Supreme Court has highlighted the financial burden that prolonged litigation imposes on both the concerned employees and the State’s treasury, stressing the importance of judicial efficiency. The ruling makes it clear that ensuring the swift resolution of pension-related cases is crucial to upholding the rights of employees while preventing unnecessary financial liabilities for the State.
Case Name: State of Odisha & ors v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena
Citation: 2146 OF 2024
Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah