Supreme Court reprimands Odisha over pension case delays

The Supreme Court of India has highlighted a crucial distinction between 'work-charged employees' and 'job contractors' concerning pension entitlements under the Odisha Pension Rules 1992. This clarification follows numerous delayed petitions from Odisha regarding pension benefits.

Explaining the distinction between the work-charged employee and employees working on a job contract, the Top 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,” the Court added. 

Court Allows Late Petitions:

In a notable decision, according to Live Law, the Supreme Court allowed Odisha's delayed petitions to be considered on their merits. This move deviates from typical protocol but was deemed necessary due to the large number of employees involved and the significant implications for the state's financial resources.

State's Laxity Reprimanded:

Despite permitting the delayed petitions, the Supreme Court expressed its discontent with Odisha's tardy management of these pension-related legal proceedings. To address the undue delays caused by these appeals and petitions, the Court has imposed a financial penalty on the State—charging Rs 1.5 lakh per employee for prolonging the legal process unnecessarily.

Financial Implications:

This decision highlights the financial impact on both the affected employees and the State Exchequer, emphasising the need for efficient legal proceedings to uphold pension rights effectively.

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 Orissa 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.