Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
13. In our respectful opinion, the above interpretation by the two Judge Bench of this Court regarding the three Judge Bench decision in Prem Singh (supra) does not appear to be correct as the three Judge Bench has been quite unambiguous in asserting that the entire period of service of the work-charged employees has to be counted for pension.
14. Be that as it may, we are still unable to grant the same relief to the respondent(s) as has been given to the work-charged employees by this court and as indeed was their prayer before the High Court and also before this Court. The reason being that in the Odisha Pension Rules 1992, a clear distinction has been made between the work-charged establishment and job contract establishment. In order to keep a proper perspective, we need to refer to Rule 18 of the above rules which is as follows: “18. Conditions subject to which service qualifies- (1) Service does not qualify for pension unless it is rendered in a pensionable establishment /post. (2) The entire continuous temporary or officiating service under Government without interruption in the same post or any other post, shall count for the purpose of pension in respect of all categories of Government servants except in the following cases, namely:- (i) Period of service in a non-pensionable establishment; (ii) Period of service in the work-charged establishment; (iii) Period of service paid from contingencies; (iv) Where the employee concerned resigns and is not again appointed to service under Government or is removed/dismissed from public service; (v) A probationer who is discharged from service for failure to pass the prescribed test or examination; (vi) Re-employed pensioner, Government servants engaged on contract and Government servants not in whole time employment of Government; (vii) Service paid from Local Fund or Trust Fund; [2025] 2 S.C.R. State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena (viii) Service in an office paid by fees whether levied by law or under authority of the Government or by Commission; and (ix) Service paid out of the grant in accordance with Law or Custom. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (2) a person who is initially appointed by the Government in a work-charged establishment for a period of five years or more and is subsequently appointed to the same or another post in a temporary or substantive capacity in a pensionable establishment without interruption of duty, the period of service so rendered in work-charged establishment shall qualify for pension under this rule. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) Government, may, by general or special order, prescribe any class of service or post which were previously born under work-charged establishment or paid from contingencies to be pensionable. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2) in case of a Government servant belonging to Government of India or other State Government on his permanent transfer to the State Government the continuous service rendered by him under pensionable establishment of Government of India or any other State Government, as the case may be, shall count as qualifying service for pension. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i) & (iii) of sub-rule (2), a person who is initially appointed in a job contract establishment and is subsequently brought over to the post created under regular/ pensionable establishment, so much of his job contract service period shall be added to the period of his qualifying service in regular establishment and would render him eligible for pensionary benefits. (Vide Finance Department Notification No.45865/F., dt.01.09.2001)” (Emphasis provided) 1308
15. As stated earlier, 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, 19922. Compare this with the provision relating to job contract establishment3 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.
16. Again, as we have already stated in the preceding paragraphs, these Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 or the distinction under the law have not been challenged before any Court. As we have already stated, this was also the point which was never even mentioned before this Court, leave aside any argument being made by any of the parties in this regard. We are, therefore, at a loss to examine as to whether the work the two are actually performing is similar or not? Therefore, we are not in a position to determine whether the classification itself between the work-charged establishment and job contract establishment is artificial or an unequal classification to make it violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though, we may, however, mention at this stage that the work charged employees are governed by the Orissa Work Charged Employees (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 1974 which are issued by the General Administration Department of the State Government which defines such work-charged establishment as follows: “2(1)(q) “Work-charged establishment” means an establishment where the pay and allowances of the Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 18 Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 18 [2025] 2 S.C.R. State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena employees are charged to the item of work for which they are employed.” (Emphasis provided)
17. On the other hand, employees in the job contract establishment are associated with survey and settlement and map publication as well as consolidation operations in the State and their service conditions are governed by the Consolidation Manual issued under Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972.
18. As we have already stated above, we are not in a position to give a finding as to whether the distinction between the two is artificial, being only a difference of nomenclature, and also whether effectively, they both are performing regular work, for the reason that no arguments have been made by any side on this aspect. We, therefore, leave this aspect open.
19. Presently, in the cases before us, and for reasons which have already given above, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, these appeals are hereby allowed.
20. Having made the above determination, we also feel that it is our duty to bring on record the extreme carelessness and lethargic manner in which the State has been pursuing these cases, both in the High Court and before this Court. The delay caused by them is inexcusable. Nevertheless, we have heard these matters for reasons we have already stated in the preceding paragraphs in the earlier part of this judgment. All such cases, which were belatedly filed, both before the High Court in Appeal and then before this Court as Special Leave Petitions, are hereby set apart from the rest, only for the purpose of payment of costs. 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.
21. Due to the delay in filing of Special Leave Petitions some petitions were dismissed earlier as we have stated in the preceding paragraphs. 1310 Now, in terms of our order here, the State may file its review, within four weeks from today.
22. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
23. All pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of. Result of the case: Appeals allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain