Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Uttam Charan Behera vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 945 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 945 Ori
Judgement Date : 7 July, 2025

Orissa High Court

Uttam Charan Behera vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 7 July, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           W.P.(C) No.17967 of 2025

                Uttam Charan Behera              ....        Petitioner

                                    Mr. Prabin Das, Advocate along
                                          with S. Mishra, Advocate

                                      -versus-

                State of Odisha & Others         ....      Opp. Parties

                                         Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, AGA


                              CORAM:
        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Order                                 ORDER
 No.                                07.07.2025
 01.       1.     This   matter   is taken up         through   Hybrid
           Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
           2.     Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well
           as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
           Perused the writ petition as well as the documents
           annexed thereto.
           3.     The present writ petition has been filed by the
           Petitioner with the following prayers:-
                   "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble
                   Court may graciously be pleased to admit
                   the Writ Petition and issue RULE NISI,
                   thereby calling upon the opposite parties, to
                   show cause as to why the petitioner shall
                   not be granted with the retiral benefits
                   including pension to be paid regularly and
                   will not be further directed to pay interest
        at such rate as this Hon'ble Court may
       deem fit and proper over and above the
       amount of arrear pension, to be paid within
       a stipulated time and on their failure to
       show cause or showing insufficient cause,
       to make the said RULE absolute, by
       directing the opposite parties, to pay the
       pension to the petitioner and release the
       arrear pension within a stipulated time
       along with interest @ 12 % from the date
       when such amount fell due till the date of
       disbursement thereof and may also be
       pleased to pass such other or further
       order(s)/direction(s), as may be found just
       and proper in the facts and circumstances
       of the case."

4.   Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset,
contended that initially the Petitioner was appointed as
an employee under the Cuttack Development Authority
prior to 01.01.2005. He further contended that the
Petitioner    is entitled to      get   pensionary   benefits.
However,      the     Cuttack      Development       Authority
introduced     a    rule,    namely,    Odisha    Development
Authorities (Retirement Benefit of the Employees)
Rules, 2015 w.e.f. 11.08.2015. The vires of the
aforesaid rule was assailed before the Division Bench
of this Court in W.P(C) No.18559 of 2015. The Hon'ble
Division     Bench    vide    judgment    dated    04.12.2023
declared the aforesaid rule to be ultra vires and in
Paragraph-81 of the judgment laid down a detailed
guideline with regard to the employees of the Cuttack
Development Authority. For better appreciation, such
guideline is extracted herein below:-

                                                            2
 "81. In view of the discussions, as above,
the    Odisha     Development     Authorities
(Retirement Benefit of the Employees)
Rules, 2015 under Annexure-6 to the writ
petition is hereby declared ultra vires to the
provisions contained in the Odisha
Development Authorities Act, 1982 as well
as Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of
India, 1950 and as a logical corollary, the
following consequences ensue:
     i. Employees working under any
     Development Authority constituted under
     the Odisha Development Authorities Act,
     1982, who are in receipt of the
     pensionary benefit at par with their
     counterparts in State Government cannot
     be affected by any subsequent Rule; and

     ii. In the light of the judgment in the
     case of Shri Ananda Dash (supra), the
     employees, who had joined in service
     prior to 17.09.2005, i.e. the date of
     notification of the amendment in SubRule
     (4) of Rule (3) of the Odisha Civil Services
     (Pension) Rules, 1992, are to get their
     retiral benefits at par with their counter
     parts in the Government inasmuch as
     they cannot be equated with the
     employees working in an industry or
     factory establishment in view of the ratio
     of the decision of the co-ordinate Bench
     in the case of Cuttack. Development
     Authority Vs. Regional Provident
     Fund      Commissioner (Supra) and
     Employees            Provident        Fund
     Organization Vs. Raipur Development
     Authority (Supra).

     iii. Employees working under any
     Development Authority, who have joined
     after 17.09.2005, would be entitled to
     the benefits under the new structured
     defined contribution pension scheme as
     applicable to their counterparts in the
     State Government in terms of the Odisha
                                                    3
              Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.

       Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner,
       being an employee appointed prior to
       01.01.2005, is entitled to get pension, as is
       being availed by the similarly situated
       employees under the State Government. Let
       the retrial benefits be disbursed in favour
       of the petitioner, who is stated to have been
       retired on superannuation during the
       pendency of the writ petition, in accordance
       with law, within a period of the three
       months from the date of receipt of the copy
       of judgment."

5.   Learned counsel        for    the   Petitioner,    at   this
juncture, contended that the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court was assailed before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court preferred by the Cuttack Development
Authority. Challenging before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by the Cuttack Development Authority by filing
SLP(C) Diary No.30536 of 2024. Learned counsel for
the Petitioner further submitted that the aforesaid SLP
has already been disposed of in the meantime and the
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench has been
affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. She further
contended    that    in   the     meantime    the      Petitioner
approached     the    Opposite      Party    No.4-      Cuttack
Development Authority for grant of pensionary benefit.
However, the Opposite Party No.4 has intimated the
Petitioner that since she is not the Petitioner before
this Court in W.P.(C) No.18559 of 2015, she is not
entitled the benefits accruing to the Petitioner in that


                                                               4
 case pursuant to the judgment dated 04.12.2023.
6.    Taking into consideration the submissions made
by the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties and on a careful analysis of the legal position,
further on a close scrutiny of the judgment dated
04.12.2023

, it appears that the Division Bench of this Court has already held the Odisha Development Authorities (Retirement Benefit of the Employees) Rules, 2015 to be ultra vires and the direction in Paragraph-81 of the said judgment, which has been quoted hereinabove, applies to all the employees of the Cuttack Development Authority.

7. In such view of the matter, this present writ petition is being disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.4 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with a certified copy of this order within three weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.4 shall consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the direction given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Paragraph-81 of the judgment dated 04.12.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.18559 of 2015 and the representation of the Petitioner be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.4. The final order so passed on the representation of the Petitioner shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a week

thereafter.

8. Since the order is passed in the absence of the contesting Opposite Party No.4, liberty is given to the Opposite Party No.4 to seek modification/alteration of the order in the event any material information is suppressed by the Petitioner.

9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

amit

eMudhra.App.Views.PartialControls.SigningModeTab.Signi

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 09-Jul-2025 17:36:25

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter