Clear Distinction Exists Between Work­-Charged & Job Contract Employees: Supreme Court On Odisha Civil Services Pension Rules

The Supreme Court held that there is a clear distinction between the employees who are in work­-charged establishment vis-à-vis those who are in job contract establishment, under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.

The Court held thus in a batch of various Civil Appeals preferred by the Odisha State, challenging the Order of the Orissa High Court, Division Bench by which Writ Appeals were dismissed due to inordinate delay in filing the same.

The two-Judge Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah 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.”

The Bench mentioned 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.

Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia appeared on behalf of the State.

Brief Facts

In the Odisha State, 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 were Odisha Pension Rules, 1992. Then a case came up before the Division Bench which was decided in 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.

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. Subsequently, the State published an Office Memorandum in 1997, where it repeated what was said by the High Court. The Judgment of the 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. In this case, the Single Judge 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 latches. Hence, the case was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, remarked, “… 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. 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 Court said that the State though kept filing one Special Leave Petition (SLP) after another before the Supreme Court, not in one go but one after another, most of them belatedly, to complete a mere formality and for this reason, many of these Petitions have been dismissed on the ground of delay itself, as Courts do not come to rescue those who sleep over their rights, be it the State.

“… 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”, it further noted.

The Court also observed that the 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.

“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”, it added.

The Court said that the State was careless and lethargic in pursuing these cases, both in the High Court and before the Supreme Court and that the delay caused by them is inexcusable.

“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”, it directed.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and directed the State to pay Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the employee concerned within 4 weeks.

Cause Title- State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 259)

Click here to read/download the Judgment