WA/1793/2023 of STATE OF ODISHA Vs BASANTI BEHERA on 21 July 2026

JUDGMENT

By the Bench;

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

// 2 //

W.A. No. 1793 OF 2023 Page 2 of 9

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.5686 of 2022 and batch of connected writ petitions.

3. The Respondent herein, namely, Basanti Behera, filed W.P.(C) No.5686 of 2022 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 Junior Clerk-cum-Typist on DLR basis on 10th March, 1996 under R and B Division No. II, Puri. In the year 1990, the R and B Division No. II merged with the R.D. Department. On 11th February, 2011, the Respondent was taken over to work-charged establishment. Subsequently, the Respondent’s service was regularized vide order dated 27th February, 2020 and superannuated from service on 30th June, 2020.

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, she filed W.P.(C) No. 13314 of 2020 praying, inter alia, to grant pension and post- retiral benefits as due and admissible to her. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 6th July, 2021 with a direction to Appellant No.2, namely, the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works, Bhubaneswar in the district of Khordha, to consider the case of the Respondent for grant of pensionary benefits as due and

// 3 //

W.A. No. 1793 OF 2023 Page 3 of 9

admissible to her, taking into consideration the order dated 3rd February, 2021 passed by this Court in the cases of Chandra Nandi and Premananda Tripathy as well as the ratio in the case of State of Orissa v. Jyostna Rani Pattnaik [W.P.(C) No. 1534 of 2008, disposed of on 19th December, 2016], and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

4. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the claim of the Respondent was considered and rejected vide order dated 4th December, 2021 on the ground that the ratio in the cases of Chandra Nandi and Premananda Tripathy was not applicable, as both belonged to the Water Resources Department and had retired in the year, 2002 and 1999, respectively. Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 5686 of 2022. 4.1 The said writ petition was disposed of by a common order dated 7th December, 2022 along with a batch of writ petitions involving a similar issue, whereby the order dated 4th December, 2021 passed by Appellant No. 2 was set aside. It was also directed, inter alia, that the case of the Respondent should be considered afresh in the light of the common order passed in W.P.(C) No.36009 of 2021 and other connected matters. Being aggrieved by the said common order, the present Intra-Court Appeal has been filed by the State and its officials.

5. 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 was in work- charged establishment and was regularized only on 27th

// 4 //

W.A. No. 1793 OF 2023 Page 4 of 9

February, 2020, 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 on DLR basis and subsequently brought over to regular establishment with effect from 27th February, 2020, i.e., after 1st January, 2005, she is not entitled to pension, as provided under the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (for brevity, ‘1992 Rules’).

6. 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 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 DLR basis with effect from 10th March, 1986 and was subsequently brought over to the work-charged establishment with effect from 11th

// 5 //

W.A. No. 1793 OF 2023 Page 5 of 9

February, 2011. Thereafter, her service was regularized with effect from 27th February, 2020. 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.

7. 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 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.

// 6 //

W.A. No. 1793 OF 2023 Page 6 of 9

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 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

// 7 //

W.A. No. 1793 OF 2023 Page 7 of 9

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.”

8. Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the Respondent, therefore, 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.

9. 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 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.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record including the ratio in the case of Principal

// 8 //

W.A. No. 1793 OF 2023 Page 8 of 9

Secretary to Government, Works Department, Government of Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others (supra).

11. 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.

12. 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 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.

13. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Respondent is entitled to pension under the

// 9 //

W.A. No. 1793 OF 2023 Page 9 of 9

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. 1, namely, the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Odisha, 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.

14. 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