WA/2830/2024 of STATE OF ODISHA Vs ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA on 25 June 2026

ORDER

25.06.2026

04. The State and its officials are in this Intra-Court Appeal to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 16.09.2022 whereby Respondent-employee’s W.P.(C)(OAC) No.1519 of 2018 having been favoured essentially a direction has been given to reckon the period of ad hoc service for computing the qualifying service for the purpose of minimum pension and terminal benefits.

2. Learned AGA, Mr. Mohanty firstly contends that the learned Single Judge was not right in hurriedly granting relief to the Respondent-employee and secondly, that the decision in State Of Odisha and Others vs. Niranjan Biswal, 2018 (II) ILR Cut 221 was not applicable to the case at hand. Therefore, according to him, these two infirmities provide a ground for interference of this Court. Since the Appeal has been filed after brooking a long delay of 723 days an application in I.A. No.7417 of 2024 supported by affidavit is moved seeking its condonation.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- employee resists the Appeal both on the grounds of merit and the delay long brooked. He tells us that although the fact matrix of Niranjan Biswal (supra) is not arithmetically accurate, wisdom can be drawn from the decision even otherwise. Further, he submits that the Respondent-employee having gained entry to his service on 02.08.1999, came to be made a permanent employee only on 22.02.2014 as Junior Clerk. The long service of an early 15 years cannot be wiped out without impunity.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employee. The Apex Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union Of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 has held that the retired employees have to be treated with soft gloves without creating any artificial class only on the ground of nature of service they have put in. This inarticulate premise having animated the impugned order, the same is inexplicable.

5. Mr. Panda, learned AGA interjecting in the matter submits that in matters of the kind, already the law has been declared by this Court in State Of Odisha & Ors vs. Krushna Chandra Mallick & Anr. in W.A. No. 17 of 2023 and therefore what benefit has been accorded in the said decision to the litigant may be adopted as the major for this case as well. We agree.

6. The Appeal has been filed after brooking a long delay of 723 days and a perusal of the application supported by the affidavit does not convince us that there is plausible ground, much less an explanation for the same. There being a very long delay and there being no proper explanation offered for the same, we are not impressed with the prayer made in the application and therefore, reject the application.

In the above circumstances, this Appeal fails subject to the condition that the benefit granted in the Krushna Chandra Mallick (supra) shall be the guiding factor for granting the relief to the Respondent-employee herein. The Appellants to implement order of the learned Single Judge within an outer limit of three (3) months. Otherwise, they run the risk of contempt action. No order as to costs. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Krishna S. Dixit)

Judge

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

AK Pradhan/Priyanka Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYANKA BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 18:17:30 Signature Not Verified