WA/621/2025 of STATE OF ODISHA Vs DILLIP KUMAR PANDA on 25 June 2026

ORDER

25.06.2026

The State and its functionaries have filed this Intra Court Appeal for laying a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 06.11.2024, whereby Respondent-employee’s W.P.(C) No.13509 of 2011 having been favoured, a direction has been issued for counting the contractual period of service for computing the qualifying period for pension. Appeal has been filed after brooking a delay of 163 days and an application in I.A. No.1602 of 2025 supported by affidavit accompanies the appeal memo.

2. Learned AGA-Mr. Mohanty appearing for the Appellants submits that the contractual period of service between 23.03.2000 and 18.03.2010 could not have been reckoned for the purpose of computing the qualifying period for determination of pension and terminal benefits. In support of this submission, he presses into service the provisions of Rule 14 of Odisha Civil Services (Pension)

Rules, 1992. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-employee resists the Appeal both on merits and on delay contending that the pari materia Rule 17 of Central Pension Rules is textually identical to Rule 14 of the 1992 Rules of the State; the said Rule having been construed by the Apex Court in S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 594 it has been observed that contractual period of service of the kind has to be reckoned. He further contends that the decision of learned Single judge accords with the ratio in S.D. Jayprakash supra and therefore, is inexplicable. He also tells us that the explanation offered for the long delay of 163 days brooked in filing the Appeal has no plausibility and therefore, cannot be accepted. So contending he seeks dismissal of the Appeal.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

3.1. Though an application supported by affidavit is filed seeking condonation delay of 163 days, no plausible explanation is offered for the same. Delay cannot be condoned merely because the Appellant happens to be State or its entity, law of limitation being same for all litigants, subject to just exceptions. Therefore, we reject the application for condonation of delay.

3.2. We have undertaken the exercise to examine the matter on merits as well, since submissions have been made by the both the sides on the same. The post of Senior Lecturer came to be created on 14.11.1996, is not in dispute. There was an advertisement dated 02.07.1998 published in the newspaper on 30.07.1998 calling for applications from eligible candidates for the post in question. Interview was held on 31.05.1999 and Respondent came to be selected in the year 2000. The advertisement specifically stated that the selected candidates would be paid salary in the pay scale of Rs.9,350-Rs.14,550/-. That being the position, the quality and quantum of service rendered by the Respondent even on contractual basis regardless of consolidated pay drawn would not be different from that of regular recruitee. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for not reckoning the contractual service for determining other terminal benefits and pension.

3.3. It is un-understandable as to how a candidate selected and appointed to the post pursuant to Regular Recruitment Notification could have been engaged on contract basis that too on a consolidated pay, which is much less than the regular salary drawn in the pay scale of Rs.9,350-Rs.14,550/- admissible to the post in question. It hardly needs to be stated, regular recruitment cannot be denied, where it has been accomplished on normative basis, simply by granting contractual engagement. Therefore, declining to count contractual service for determining the terminal benefits virtually amounts to salting the injury already inflicted on the Respondent-employee.

3.4. The reliance on Rule 14 of 1992 Rules would not come to the aid of the Appellant for the reason that textually identical provision, namely, Rule 17 of Central Pension Rules, was construed by the Apex Court in S.D. Jayprakash supra holding that even the contractual service of the kind has to be reckoned for the purpose in question. At paragraph-9 of the said ruling, it has been observed as under: “In the light of the clear language of Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as well as its interpretation in Sheela Devi (supra), the contractual service period rendered prior to the appellants’ regularization in 2015 must be counted towards the payment of their pernsionary benefits in accordance with the mechanism set out in Rule 17. In line with the directions issued in Sheela Devi (supra) extracted hereinabove, we direct the respondent Union of India to take immediate steps and indicate the mode and manner for the appellants to exercise the option provided under Rule 17 of the pension Rules as well as to notify the amounts that the appellants would have to remit in case they opt for grant of pension under the Rules.” The Apex Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 has observed that pension is not a bounty. State being the model employer has to make appropriate provisions for the evening of employees on retirement. Accordingly, Rule 14 of 1992 Rules has been promulgated. When text of this Rule is identical in all aspects with that of Rule 17 of the Central Rules, there is absolutely no reason for this Court to place its own interpretation agreeing with the submission of learned AGA. Despite vociferous submission, why the principle of pari materia should not be invoked has not been shown. In the above circumstances, the appeal being devoid of merits and hit by delay is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy. A direction issues to the Appellants herein to give effect to the impugned order of the learned Single Judge within eight weeks without giving scope for initiation of contempt proceedings.

Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Madhusmita

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 01-Jul-2026 10:01:19 Signature Not Verified