Supreme Court of India· 21 February 2025
Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, can a court determine whether the classification between work-charged establishment and job contract establishment is artificial where the Rules were never challenged and no party argued the point?
STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. v. SUDHANSU SEKHAR JENA
2025 INSC 259 · SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2146 OF 2024
Coram: Sudhanshu Dhulia; Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Answer
No. Where these Rules or the distinction under the law have not been challenged before any Court and the point was never even mentioned, the Court is at a loss to examine whether the work the two actually perform is similar, cannot determine whether the classification is artificial or an unequal classification violative of Article 14, and leaves the aspect open.
Headnote
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)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 16Again, 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:
Paragraph 18As 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.
Acts & Sections
r.18(6) Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992r.18(3) Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992Art. 14 Constitution of IndiaOne 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.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →
Also decided in this judgment
Under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, when a job contract employee is brought over to a post created under a regular pensionable establishment, is his entire job contract service counted for pension?Under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, how does Rule 18(3) treat work-charged service differently from Rule 18(6)'s treatment of job contract service?Where a three Judge Bench has held that the entire period of work-charged service must be counted for pension, may a later two Judge Bench confine that ruling to counting the service only for qualifying service?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?Where the State has filed its appeals belatedly and the delay was never explained in any satisfactory manner, may the Court still examine the matter on merits, and with what consequence to the State?