WA/1771/2023 of STATE OF ODISHA Vs RABINDRA KUMAR JENA on 21 July 2026

JUDGMENT

By the Bench;

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed by the State and its officials assailing the common order dated 7th December, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.36009 of 2021 and batch of connected writ petitions.

3. The Respondent herein, namely, Rabindra Kumar Jena, filed W.P.(C) No.36009 of 2021 claiming pensionary as well as other retiral benefits.

3.1 The factual matrix in nutshell, which led to filing of the present Intra-Court Appeal, was that the Respondent was appointed as Wireman on NMR basis on 13th November, 1981 and was posted against different regular vacant posts under GED No.III, Sambalpur. Subsequently, Respondent’s services was regularized vide order No.6175 dated 31st October, 2009 of the Executive Engineer, GED No.III, Sambalpur (Appellant No.5) and superannuated from service on 30th June, 2021 after putting in 39 years of continuous services.

3.2 After retirement, the Respondent claimed pensionary as well as other retiral benefits. As the grievance of the Respondent was not paid any heed, he filed W.P.(C) No. 36009 of 2021 praying inter alia to grant pension and other post- retiral benefits as due and admissible to him. The said writ petition was disposed of by a common order dated 7th

// 3 //

W.A. No. 1771 OF 2023 Page 3 of 8

December, 2022 along with a batch of writ petitions involving similar issue. It was directed, inter alia, that the case of the Respondent should be considered for grant of pensionary benefit in terms of the observation made in the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said common order, the present Intra- Court Appeal has been filed by the State and its officials.

4. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel, in his submission, reiterated the objection raised by the State in the writ petition and contends that the Respondent while working as a NMR Wireman was regularized only on 31st October, 2009, i.e., after coming into force of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Amendment Rules, 2005 (for brevity ‘2005 Rules’), which came into effect from 1st January, 2005 vide notification dated 17th September, 2005. It is submitted that pursuant to the said amendment, all persons appointed under the Government of Odisha with effect from 1st January, 2005 shall not be entitled to pension as per Rule 3(1) of 2005 Rules. They shall be covered under the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme. As the Respondent was initially appointed as an NMR Wireman and subsequently brought over to regular establishment with effect from 31st October, 2009, i.e., after 1st January, 2005, he is not entitled to pension, as provided under the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (for brevity, ‘1992 Rules’).

5. He further submits that though similarly situated employees, whose services were regularized after 1st January, 2005, have been extended with the benefits of pension under the

// 4 //

W.A. No. 1771 OF 2023 Page 4 of 8

1992 Rules, but their cases are not similar to that of the Respondent. It is submitted that all the employees, who had successfully litigated before this Court, have been extended with the benefits of pension under the 1992 Rules as per the directions of this Court. He, however, made an endeavour to distinguish the case of the Respondent on facts, submitting that the Respondent was initially appointed on NMR basis with effect from 13th November, 1981 and was subsequently brought over to the regular establishment with effect from 31st October, 2009. Thus, the provisions of the 2005 Rules are squarely applicable to the case of the Respondent. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order under Annexure-1 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

6. Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the Respondent, vehemently objects to the same. It is his submission that the ratio on the issue at hand is no more res integra, as it has already been decided in a catena of cases that the employees who were initially appointed prior to the coming into force of the 2005 Rules and their services were regularized subsequently, will be entitled to pension under the 1992 Rules. He verily relied upon the judgment dated 12th January, 2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.A. No. 975 of 2025 (Principal Secretary to Government, Works Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others v. Ashok Kumar Pattanayak and another) in which, it is held as under:

“4.2 The second submission that the provisions of Rule 3 read with Rule 18 of 1992 Rules, as amended in

// 5 //

W.A. No. 1771 OF 2023 Page 5 of 8

2005, come in the way of pension being granted to the Respondents, bit difficult to agree with. Such a contention was taken up in Panigrahi supra and in an avalanche of cases; the same came to be negatived and resultantly terminal benefits like pension came to be granted to all other similarly circumstanced employees, as contended by Mr. Mishra. Matter was carried further to the portals of Apex Court and the challenge was laid to rest in SLP (C) Diary No(s). 50364 of 2023 disposed off on 02.01.2024, whereby imprimatur was accorded to the Division Bench judgment. Therefore, the second submission also falls to the ground.

4.3. There is also force in the submission of learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mishra that when the State has already granted terminal benefits like pension, etc. under the provisions of 1992 Rules post 2005 amendment, would carve out a class within the class of pensioners, which falls foul of D.S. Nakara Jurisprudence. It is not disputed before us by the AGA that all other similarly circumstanced employees, who had litigated before this Court successfully, have been granted pensionary benefits under the 1992 Rules, of course mutatis mutandis. If that be so, what justification the State has to adopt a step-motherly attitude for the poor Respondents herein, remains un-understandable. In C. Lalitha supra, Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the culpable conduct of State in driving a set of employees to the avoidable legal battle, when other similarly circumstanced set had emerged victorious in the litigation.

4.4. It hardly needs to be stated that the State, being a Model Employer, vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234, should have on its own extended the benefits of decision in Panigrahi supra. That course would have saved public time of the Court and private time of the litigants, when pendency of cases is mounting up. This Court notes it with penury at heart that several unworthy cases are filed before Writ Courts even when debatable issues have already been laid to rest at the level of Apex Court of the country. Which section of the bureaucracy prompts filing of cases of the kind, remains a riddle wrapped in enigma. Such a

// 6 //

W.A. No. 1771 OF 2023 Page 6 of 8

tendency on the part of State and its instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, needs to be checked and sooner it is done, better it will be. Otherwise, the objects of constitutionally ordained welfare State would be defeated to the detriment of citizens.

In the above circumstances, this Writ Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly rejected, costs having been made easy. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge shall be implemented within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks, and a compliance report shall be filed with the Registrar General of this Court in two (2) weeks next following, without driving the poor Respondents to another round of avoidable litigation.

Web copy of the judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.”

7. Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the order passed in W.A. No. 975 of 2025 has already been given effect to by the State Government. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge, taking note of the provisions of the 1992 Rules, 2005 Rules, and Odisha Service Code, as well as the case laws of this Court and Hon’ble the Supreme Court, came to a categorical finding that the Respondent is entitled to pension under the 1992 Rules. Since the Appellants could not establish any perversity in the order impugned herein, the same warrants no interference. Thus, the order impugned herein should be implemented forthwith.

8. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the ratio in the case of Principal Secretary to Government, Works Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others (supra) is

// 7 //

W.A. No. 1771 OF 2023 Page 7 of 8

squarely applicable to this case. It is, however, submitted that though there is no interim order passed in the W.A., but due to pendency of the W.A., the impugned order has not yet been given effect to.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record including the ratio in the case of Principal Secretary to Government, Works Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others (supra).

10. On perusal of the impugned order under Annexure-1, we find that the learned Single Judge has meticulously dealt with the provisions of the 1992 Rules, 2005 Rules, as well as the provisions of the Odisha Service Code, to interprett the word ‘Appointment’. Learned Single Judge further relied upon the case laws of this Court as well as Hon’ble the Supreme Court to come to a conclusion that the Respondent is entitled to pension under the 1992 Rules.

11. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel, though submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law, but could not make out any ground to interfere with the same. He tried to distinguish the case of the Respondent from that of similarly situated employees, but failed in his attempt. No plausible ground could be pointed out by Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel, to differentiate the case of the Respondent from other similarly situated employees, who were in receipt of pension under the 1992 Rules. Mr. Biswal, learned Additional Standing Counsel

// 8 //

W.A. No. 1771 OF 2023 Page 8 of 8

does not dispute applicability of the ratio in the case of Principal Secretary to Government, Works Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others (supra) to the case at hand.

12. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Respondent is entitled to pension under the 1992 Rules, and it is expected that the same shall be disbursed in favour of the Respondent as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the Respondent before Appellant No.4, namely, the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle (R and B), Nirman Soudh, Bhubaneswar and compliance thereof shall be reported to learned Registrar General of this Court. The Respondent is also at liberty to claim interest on delayed payment of pension, if so advised.

13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra)

Judge

(S.K. Mishra)

Judge High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated 21st July, 2026/Madhusmita