Does a Tribunal ruling that rests on a total misinterpretation of a High Court judgment, directing that the entire period of job contract employment be counted for pension, govern later claims?

No. The Tribunal's direction proceeded on a total misinterpretation and reading of the Job Contract Employees Union case, and the same Tribunal later, considering the amended Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 18 along with that judgment, dismissed the claim for inclusion of the entire job contract employment period.

Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 — r.18(3) — r.18(6) — Job contract establishment — Work-charged establishment — Qualifying service — Pensionary benefits — Constitution of India — Art. 14 — Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 — r.18(6) — Job contract service — Only so much as makes eligible — Held: Where a job contract employee is brought over to a regular pensionable establishment, only so much of his job contract service as would render him eligible for pensionary benefits is added to his qualifying service. The entire period cannot be counted. (¶14, 15) Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 — r.18(3) — Work-charged service — Prem Singh reading — Held further: Work-charged service of five years or more without interruption, followed by appointment to a pensionable establishment, qualifies for pension in full. The two Judge Bench reading confining Prem Singh to qualifying service does not appear to be correct, the three Judge Bench being quite unambiguous. (¶12, 13) Constitution of India — Art. 14 — Classification between the two establishments — Left open — Held further: Whether the classification between work-charged establishment and job contract establishment is artificial or an unequal classification violative of Article 14 cannot be determined where the Rules were never challenged and the point was never even mentioned. That aspect is left open. (¶16, 18) Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 — Belated appeals by the State — Costs — Held further: Inexcusable delay does not bar examination on merits where a large number of employees and the State Exchequer are affected, but every belatedly filed case is set apart for costs of Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand to the employee concerned. Appeals allowed. (¶3, 20)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. v. SUDHANSU SEKHAR JENA — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India