STATE OF ODISHA & ORS.versusSUDHANSU SEKHAR JENA

                 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1295 : 2025 INSC 259

                         State of Odisha & Ors.
                                   v.
                         Sudhansu Sekhar Jena
                       (Civil Appeal No. 2803 of 2025)
                               21 February 2025
     [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the computation of pensionary benefits
       of Job contract employees, only such period of their service as
       ‘Job Contractors’ to be counted for pensionary benefits as was
       sufficient to entitle them for pension or the entire period of Job
       Contract Employment; and the order of the Division Bench of the
       High Court dismissing the writ appeals filed by the State due to
       inordinate delay.

                                   Headnotes†
       Service law – Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 –
       r.18 (6) – Pensionary benefits – Computation, of employees
       employed as a ‘Job Contractor’ – Only such period of their
       service as ‘Job Contractors’ to be counted for pensionary
       benefits as was sufficient to entitle them for pension or the
       entire period of Job Contract Employment – Order passed
       by the Single Judge of the High Court that the entire service
       period be counted for calculation of pension of Job Contract
       employees – Writ appeals thereagainst by the State – Dismissed
       due to inordinate delay in filing the appeals – Challenge to:
       Held: Order of the Single Judge of the High Court not sustainable –
       Unable to grant relief to respondents-Job Contract employees
       that has been granted by the Court to work-charged employees –
       Under the 1992 Rules, clear distinction between the work-charged
       establishment and job contract establishment, however, the 1992
       Rules and the distinction under the law not challenged before any
       Court – Thus, 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



* Author
1296                                                         [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    regular work – Nevertheless, the State has been pursuing these
    cases in extreme careless and lethargic manner – Delay caused
    by them is inexcusable – Thus, the State to pay cost of Rupees
    One Lakh Fifty Thousand to the employees concerned in cases
    belatedly filed. [Paras 10, 14, 16, 18, 20]

    Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 – r.18 sub rule 3
    and 6 – Work charged employees and job contractors –
    Distinction between:
    Held: Work-charged employees are those 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 to qualify for pension under the Rules – As regards
    the job contract employee, after he/she is brought in pensionable
    establishment, only that much period as job contract service to
    be added to regular service as would make him qualify or eligible
    for pensionary benefits. [Para 15]
    Deprecation – Inordinate delay – Procedural lapses by State
    authorities and Land Records office Surveys Office – Matters
    handled in a careless, casual and lethargic manner both in the
    High Court and before this Court, causing inordinate delay,
    which was never explained in any satisfactory manner – Thus,
    the State to pay Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand, to the
    employee concerned. [Paras 3, 20]

                             Case Law Cited
    Settlement Class-IV Job Contract Employees Union, Balasore v.
    State of Orissa & Ors., O.J.C No. 2147/1991; Bhagaban Pattnaik v.
    State of Orissa, T.A No. 11/1993; Nityanand Biswal v. State of
    Orissa & Ors., O.A No. 3020(C)/2003; All Orissa Settlement and
    Land Consolidation Non-Gazetted Technical Officers Association v.
    State of Orissa & Ors., O.A No. 3665(C) of 2001; State of Orissa v.
    Nityanand Das & Ors., W.P(C) No. 11503/2008; Judhistir Padhy v.
    State of Odisha & Ors., WPC (OAC) No. 2276/2012; Chintamani
    Panda v. State of Odisha & Ors., W.P.C (OAC) No. 3741/2015;
    Pitambar Hota v. State of Odisha, W.P.C (OAC) No. 2622/2015;
    Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2019] 11 SCR
    1075 : (2019) 10 SCC 516; Uday Pratap Thakur and Another v.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           1297

            State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena


     The State of Bihar and Others [2023] 4 SCR 530 : (2023) SCC
     OnLine SC 527 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Constitution of India; Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992;
     Orissa Work Charged Employees (Appointment and Conditions of
     Service) Instructions, 1974; Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and
     Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972.

                             List of Keywords
     Pension; Work charged employees; Work-charged establishment;
     Job contractors; Inordinate delay; Courts do not rescue those
     who sleep over their rights; Calculation of pension; Service to
     be counted for pension; Carelessness by State; Cost of Rupees
     One Lakh Fifty Thousand to the employees; Pensionary benefits.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2803 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2023 of the High Court
     of Orissa at Cuttack in WA No. 1134 of 2023
     With
     Civil Appeal Nos. 2815, 2816, 2809, 2810, 2811, 2818, 2819,
     2812, 2813, 2814, 2820, 2826, 2827, 2828, 2830, 2831, 2832,
     2833, 2835, 2836, 2837, 2839, 2841, 2842, 2843, 2844, 2846,
     2847, 2852, 2856, 2860, 2861, 2865, 2871, 2872, 2874, 2880,
     2884, 2817, 2821, 2822, 2823, 2824, 2825, 2834, 2838, 2840,
     2845, 2848, 2849, 2850, 2851, 2853, 2854, 2855, 2857, 2858,
     2859, 2862, 2863, 2864, 2866, 2867, 2868, 2869, 2870, 2873,
     2875, 2876, 2877, 2878, 2879, 2881, 2882, 2883, 2885, 2886,
     2887, 2888, 2889, 2890, 2891, 2892, 2893, 2894, 2895, 2896,
     2897, 2899, 2900, 2901, 2903, 2904, 2906, 2915, 2916, 2917,
     2936, 2829, 2944, 2945, 2898, 2902, 2905, 2949, 2907, 2908,
     2909, 2910, 2911, 2912, 2913, 2914, 2918, 2919, 2920, 2921,
     2922, 2923, 2951, 2924, 2925, 2926, 2927, 2928, 2929, 2930
     2931, 2956, 2932, 2959, 2960, 2961, 2933, 2965, 2934, 2935,
     2974, 2982, 2987, 2992, 2938, 2939, 2940, 2942, 2943, 2946,
     2948, 2950, 2953, 2955, 2962, 2963, 2964, 2966, 2967, 2968,
     2975, 2976, 2978, 2979, 2980, 983, 2984, 2985, 2986 2989, 2990,
     2991, 2993, 2994, 2995, 2996, 2997, 2998, 2999, 3000, 3001,
     3002, 3004, 3005, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, 3011, 3012,
1298                                                     [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


    3013, 3015, 3017, 3019, 3020, 3021, 3022, 3023, 3025, 3026,
    3029, 3030, 3031, 3033, 3034, 3035, 3042, 3046, 3052, 2957,
    2977, 2981, 3014, 3041, 3045, 3051, 2970, 3040, 3048, 3049,
    3050, 3060, 2969, 2972, 3027, 3039, 2937, 2952, 2988, 3003,
    3016, 3018, 3024, 3028, 3032, 3036, 3037, 3038, 3047, 3053,
    3054, 3055, 3056, 3057, 2954, 2973, 3067, 3063-3064, 2971,
    3082, 3086, 3103, 3061, 3062, 3077, 3080, 3087, 3090, 3099,
    3058, 3106, 3065, 3091, 3100, 3105, 3094, 3097, 3098, 3101,
    3069, 3071, 3088, 3108, 3070, 3074, 3089, 3109, 3107, 3085,
    3093, 3104, 3072, 3079, 3068, 3073, 3075, 3076, 3078, 3096,
    3066, 2941, 2947, 2958, 3043, 3044, 3059, 3083, 3111, 3102,
    3110, 3092, 3084, 3113, 3095, 3112, 3114, 3115, 3081, 3116 and
    3117 of 2025.

                       Appearances for Parties
    Dr. Sandeep Singh, Amicus Curiae.
    Advs. for the appearing parties:
    Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General, Paramjit Singh Patwalia,
    Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Sr.Advs.,
    Ankit Agarwal, Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Shibashish Misra, Niranjan
    Sahu, Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Kiran Kumar Patra, Preetish Sahu,
    Dhananjaya Mishra, Nikhil Bhatia, Ayan Rai, Som Raj Choudhury,
    Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Prashant Kumar, Prakash Ranjan Nayak,
    Debasis Jena, Animesh Dubey, Gaurav Khanna, Ms. Natasha
    Sahrawat, Ms. Deepali Bhanot, Gautam Barnwal, Rudraksh Pandey,
    Ms. Alisha Roy, Ms. Samapika Biswal, Aman Kumar Yadav, Rohit
    Amit Sthalekar, Shashank Singh, Purnendu Bajpai, Ms. Sharmila
    Upadhyay, Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, Subhasish Mohanty, Mata
    Prasad Singh, Vishvanath Agarwal, Pritam Singh, Amit Srivastava,
    Ms. Ranjita Sahu, Ms. Pritama, Manaj Sarkar, Srisatya Mohanty,
    Naveen Kumar, Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Shourajeet Chakravarty,
    Nitesh Bhandari, Ms. Stuti Bisht, Prabhat Kumar Rai, Maitreya,
    Aditya Goyal, Aditya Kumar Singh, Bhaskar Bhushan, Ms. Esha
    Kumar, Utkarsh Chandra, Esha Kumar, Ujjawal Rai, Joby P.
    Varghese, Shubhranshu Padhi, Jay Nirupam, D. Girish Kumar,
    Pranav Giri, Ekansh Sisodia, Anjuman Tripathy, Chandra Vardhan
    Singh, Ardhendu Pratap Swain, Som Raj Choudhury, Ms. Shrutee
    Aradhana, Ms. Samapika Biswal, Ms. Soumya Sannidhanam,
    Aman Kumar Yadav, Niranjan Sahu, Pabitra Kumar Biswal, Mrs.
    Durga Devi Panda, Harisha S.R., Thomas Oommeen, Sanjeev
    Kumar, Gautam Kumar Laha, Subhransh Dash, Aldanish Rein,
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                         1299

            State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena


     Anshuman Siddharth Nayak, Devesh Pratap Singh, Rahul Kulhare,
     Gagan Singh Parmar, Pabitra Kumar Biswal, Thomas Oommen,
     Mrs. Durga Devi Panda, Sachin Kumar Verma, Ms. Bhanu Kapoor,
     Ms. Arushi Jindal, Krishna, Amit Kr.Singh, Ms. K.Enatoli Sema,
     Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, A Deb Kumar, Binod Ch.
     Sabat, K C Kaushik, Tapas Das, Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Satish
     Pandey, Merusagar Samantaray, Ruturaj Satapathy, Abinash Barik,
     Ms. Lhingneivah, Ms. Ayushi Upadhyay, Avneesh Arputham, Ankit
     Sharma, Kedar Nath Tripathy, Aditya Narayan Tripathy, Gyanadutta
     Chouhan, Raghunath Pathak, Sachin Yadav, Suresh Chandra
     Tripathy, Merusagar Samantaray, Ruturaj Satapathy, Abinash Barik,
     Ms. Lhingneivah, Ms. Ayushi Upadhyay.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1.   Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2.   In all these appeals which are before this Court, the State of Odisha
     has challenged the order of the Division Bench of the Orissa High
     Court by which their Writ Appeals were dismissed due to inordinate
     delay in filing of Writ Appeals. Even this Court had earlier dismissed
     a few Special Leave Petitions on the same dispute, which were
     belatedly filed even before this Court. All the same, we are now
     examining the cases on its merits considering the importance of
     the matter(s). Nevertheless, the casual manner in which the State
     authorities, particularly the concerned department of the State and
     the Land Records office Surveys Office have handled the matters
     is a matter of concern.
3.   It is not a case concerning a few employees, rather it affects a large
     number, and in turn, the State Exchequer. It is for this reason that
     we were persuaded to look into these matter(s), although initially,
     we were not inclined to interfere, considering the lethargic approach
     of the State in pursuing these matters, and the inordinate delay
     caused, which was never explained in any satisfactory manner. The
     State though kept filing one Special Leave Petition after another
     before this Court, not in one go but one after another, most of them
     belatedly, to complete a mere formality. For this reason, many of
1300                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


     these petitions have been dismissed on the ground of delay itself as
     stated earlier, as Courts do not come to rescue those who sleep over
     their rights. Be it the State. The liability of the State on this issue will
     be addressed towards the end. Now, since we are taking up these
     matters, what will be the fate of the already dismissed petitions after
     our determination, we will address at the end.
4.   In the State of Odisha, apart from regular employees who are working
     on sanctioned posts in various departments of the State, there
     are also a large number of employees, who were working as ‘Job
     Contractors’, who are mainly engaged for purposes of survey and
     preparation of maps and for the purposes of consolidation of land
     holdings etc. Their services were not pensionary services and thus
     even when they had put in long years of service as Job Contractors
     their services were not counted for pensionary benefits, and they
     were not given any pension post their retirement. The Rules which
     were applicable in the State of Odisha at the relevant point of time
     with which we are concerned are known as Odisha Civil Services
     (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “Odisha Pension
     Rules, 1992”).
5.   Then a case came up before the Division Bench of the Orissa
     High Court, i.e. Settlement Class-IV Job Contract Employees
     Union, Balasore v. State of Orissa & Ors. (O.J.C No.2147/1991)
     (hereinafter “Job Contract Employees Union”), which was decided
     on 24.03.1992. The High Court considered the non-payment of
     pension to Job Contractors as an unfair practice and even violative
     of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Many of the Job Contractors
     were subsequently regularised in service but in most cases, this
     happened towards the end of their service where these employees
     had not completed the mandatory period of pensionable service
     which was 10 years. Hence, the Job Contractors though regularised
     in service before their retirement, were still not entitled for pension.
     The High Court in the said judgment said as under:
          “13. … This apart, for the purpose of calculating the
          pensionary benefit, so much of their earlier service period
          shall be reckoned, even if there had been breaks in their
          employment, so as to make them eligible for pension. The
          necessity of giving this direction has been felt because, if
          service rendered after regularisation alone shall be counted
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            1301

            State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena


           for pensionary benefit, most of the present incumbents
           would be denied the same, because to earn pension, ten
           years minimum service is necessary, which most of the
           incumbents at hand would not put in after regularisation
           as they would retire before completing this period having
           been appointed two decades back.”
     The State of Odisha subsequently published an Office Memorandum
     dated 12th December, 1997 where it repeated what has been said
     by the High Court in its Division Bench Judgment, while counting a
     part of the service of Job Contractors for grant of pension:
           “2. According to Finance Department Resolution No.
           22764-F, dated the 15 th May 1997, the job contract
           employees appointed prior to the 12th April 1993 (after
           which there is a ban for engagement of such employees)
           under the administrative control of different Departments
           can be brought over to the posts created under regular/
           pension establishment after completion of 10 years, service
           as job-contract employees subject to fulfilment of certain
           conditions and stipulations outlined therein. According to
           the provisions contained in the said Office Memorandum,
           the date of regularisation shall be reckoned as the first
           appointment to the service for pension and other benefits.
           It has come to the notice of the Government that some of
           the job-contract employees are absorbed under the regular
           establishment almost towards the end of their service and
           become ineligible to get the pensionary benefits due to length
           of regular Government service in pensionable establishment.
           This has caused hardship to such type of employees.
           3. The Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in their judgment dated
           the 24th January, 1992 in O.J.C. No. 2147/91 directed that
           ‘for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefit, so
           much of their service period shall be reckoned, even if there
           had been breaks in their employment, so as to make them
           eligible for pension’. The Hon’ble Orissa Administrative
           Tribunal have also in their judgment in O.A. No. 1545
           (C)/96 have categorically directed to count that much
           period of job-contract service of the employees which will
           make them eligible for pensionary benefits.
1302                                                                   [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                                  Supreme Court Reports


              4. After careful consideration of the matter, State Government
              have been pleased to decide that for the purpose of
              pensionary benefits only, so much of their job-contract
              service period shall be added to the period of qualifying
              service in regular establishment as would render them
              eligible for pension. Addition of that portion of job-contract
              service shall not be counted for calculation of gratuity.”
      Thereafter, in the year 2001, an amendment was finally brought in
      the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992 wherein sub-Rule 6 was added to
      Rule 18 of the said Rules, which reads as under:
              “(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.”1
      The judgment of Orissa High Court, the subsequent Circular of the
      Government and then the amended Rules, all three gave pensionary
      benefit to employees who were Job Contractors earlier, but provided
      that only such period of their service as ‘Job Contractors’ will be
      counted for pensionary benefits as was sufficient to entitle them
      for pension. The claim of Job Contractors for considering the entire
      period of their service for calculation of their pension was negated
      and only limited years of service was to be counted in terms of the
      above, which would suffice for their entitlement for pension. These
      provisions were never challenged before any court.
6.    All the same, on 21.10.1994, the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in
      Bhagaban Pattnaik v. State of Orissa (T.A No.11/1993), on a total
      misinterpretation and reading of Job Contract Employees Union
      (Supra) case, held that the entire period of Job Contract Employment
      should be considered for calculation of pension. This ruling was
      followed by the Tribunal when it ordered inclusion of entire period
      of Job Contract Employment in calculation of pension in Nityanand
      Biswal v. State of Orissa & Ors. [O.A No.3020(C)/2003].


1    Vide Finance Department Notification No.45856/F., dt.01.09.2001.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                     1303

            State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena


     The State of Odisha unsuccessfully tried to challenge these decisions
     of the Tribunal before the High Court and this Court. Clearly, the
     Tribunal had misinterpreted the ratio of Job Contract Employees
     Union case. We will deal this aspect later.
7.   All the same, the same Tribunal in its later decisions such as in
     All Orissa Settlement and Land Consolidation Non-Gazetted
     Technical Officers Association v. State of Orissa & Ors. [O.A
     No.3665(C) of 2001] and connected cases on 25.03.2011, considered
     the amended Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 18 of Odisha Pension Rules, 1992
     along with the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Job Contract
     Employees Union (Supra) and dismissed the claim of the Association
     for inclusion of the entire Job Contract employment period while
     calculating pension.
8.   Following the principle laid down in Job Contract Employees
     Union (Supra), another Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in
     State of Orissa v. Nityanand Das & Ors. [W.P(C) No.11503/2008]
     upheld the view of the State and dismissed other such similar claims.
     Thereafter, learned Single Judge of Orissa High Court in Judhistir
     Padhy v. State of Odisha & Ors. [WPC (OAC) No. 2276/2012]
     again dismissed the claim of similarly situated persons, although the
     State Government was directed to consider if any further concession
     can be made to the employees.
     In compliance with the said direction, the State Government once
     again considered the question whether the entire service can
     be counted towards calculation of pensionary benefit and it was
     again turned down by a speaking order, dated 02.07.2022. This
     order has never been challenged by any employee before any
     Court. Thereafter, in Chintamani Panda v. State of Odisha &
     Ors. [W.P.C (OAC) No.3741/2015] and Pitambar Hota v. State
     of Odisha [W.P.C (OAC) No.2622/2015], the Orissa High Court
     again rejected a similar claim of the employees relying on Judhistir
     Padhy (Supra).
9.   In the present batch of cases, the learned Single Judge of the High
     Court relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in Nityanand Biswal
     (Supra) and ordered that the entire service period be counted for
     calculation of pension of Job Contract employees. The writ appeals
     were filed belatedly by the State and were dismissed on the grounds
     of laches.
1304                                                       [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


10. We are totally in agreement with the submissions made by learned
    Senior Advocate, Shri P.S. Patwalia, that the order of the learned
    Single Judge cannot be sustained. Moreover, as stated at the outset,
    the Division Bench Judgment dismissed the Writ Appeals of the
    State on the first day itself, undoubtedly on the grounds of delay.
    Had the Division Bench given them an opportunity, the State would
    have explained the entire legal position and the ex-facie anomaly
    in the order of the Single Judge.
11. At this stage, we must put on record the distinction between work-
    charged employees and job contractors. Although, this point was
    never argued before this Court by any of the two parties, we must
    nevertheless in all fairness state the law as it stands today for work-
    charged employees, as distinct from job contractors.
12. There are judgments of this Court which have directed that the entire
    service of a work-charged employee has to be counted for pensionary
    benefits, once such an employee is regularised in service. The
    reference here would primarily be to a three Judge Bench decision
    of this Court in Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
    (2019) 10 SCC 516 which has relied on two earlier decisions of
    this Court and has held that once work-charged employees are
    regularised in service, their entire period of service in a work-charged
    establishment has to be counted for pensionary benefits. But then,
    that was said by this Court in context of service rules and regulations
    relating to Punjab, Uttarakhand and finally, Uttar Pradesh [in Prem
    Singh (Supra)]. The Rules though did not provide for pensions to
    such employees. Although, in a recent two Judge Bench decision,
    this Court in Uday Pratap Thakur and Another vs. The State of
    Bihar and Others (2023) SCC OnLine SC 527, while denying the
    benefit of entire period of service (as work-charged employees) to
    these employees for calculation of pension, this Court had held that
    the ruling of the three Judge Bench is in an entirely different context
    and stated as under:
          “22. Insofar as the submission on behalf of the appellants
          that their entire services rendered as work charged should
          be considered and/or counted for the purpose of pension/
          quantum of pension is concerned, the same cannot be
          accepted. If the same is accepted, in that case, it would
          tantamount to regularizing their services from the initial
          appointment as work charged. As per the catena of
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                          1305

            State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena


           decisions of this Court, there is always a difference and
           distinction between a regular employee appointed on a
           substantive post and a work charged employee working
           under work charged establishment. The work charged
           employees are not appointed on a substantive post.
           They are not appointed after due process of selection
           and as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the services
           rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the
           purpose of pension/quantum of pension. However, at the
           same time, after rendering of service as work charged for
           number of years and thereafter when their services have
           been regularized, they cannot be denied the pension on
           the ground that they have not completed the qualifying
           service for pension. That is why, the service rendered as
           work charged is to be counted and/or considered for the
           purpose of qualifying service for pension, which is provided
           under Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013.
           23. Now, insofar as the reliance placed upon the decision of
           this Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) by the learned
           counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is concerned,
           the reliance placed upon the said decision is absolutely
           misplaced. In the said case, this Court was considering
           the validity of Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit
           Rules, 1961, under which the entire service rendered as
           work charged was not to be counted for qualifying service
           for pension. To that, this Court has observed and held
           that after rendering service as work charged for number
           of years in the Government establishment/department,
           denying them the pension on the ground that they have
           not completed the qualifying service for pension would
           be unjust, arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, this Court has
           observed and held that their services rendered as work
           charged shall be considered/counted for qualifying service.
           This Court has not observed and held that the entire service
           rendered as work charged shall be considered/counted
           for the quantum of pension/pension. The decision of this
           Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra), therefore, would
           be restricted to the counting of service rendered as work
           charged for qualifying service for pension.”
1306                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


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.                                                             1307

            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                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


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


2   Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 18
3   Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 18
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        1309

            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                                                         [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     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