Orissa High Court
Durga Charan Das And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 13 May, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18578 of 2015
Durga Charan Das and others .... Petitioners
Mr. Nirmal Chandra Das, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Bimbisar Dash, AGA
Ms. Pami Rath, Senior Advocate
W.P.(C) No.1018 of 2014
Rabinarayan Das and others .... Petitioners
Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate
Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Bimbisar Dash, AGA
Ms. Pami Rath, Senior Advocate
And
W.P.(C) No.8554 of 2014
Odisha Mining Workers' .... Petitioner
Federation, OMC House, Unit-
V, Bhubaneswar
Mr. S.S. Das, Senior Advocate
Ms. Sobhna Das, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Bimbisar Dash, AGA
Ms. Pami Rath, Senior Advocate
Page 1 of 39
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.05.2025
1. Since a common cause of action is involved, all the writ
petitions have been clubbed together for disposal.
2. W.P.(C) No.1018 of 2014: Instant writ petition is at the
behest of the petitioners, who are the ex-employees of the
Orissa Mining Corporation (in short „the Corporation‟)
seeking a direction to the opposite parties, particularly,
opposite party No.2 therein to implement the decision of the
Corporation as at Annexures-2 and 3 with effect from 1st
April, 1989 and to extend the pensionary benefits to them and
other retired employees and to quash the impugned order
dated 28th April, 2014 under Annexure-9 declaring the same
as not tenable in the eyes of law with consequential
directions issued.
3. W.P.(C) No.8554 of 2014: The Odisha Mining Workers‟
Federation has filed the writ petition assailing the impugned
decision of the State Government as at Annexure-14 therein
and to quash the same with a further direction to implement
the pension scheme for the employees of the Corporation
after approval as per Annexure-3 within a stipulated period
and to pass such orders and directions as deemed just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Page 2 of 39
4. W.P.(C) No.18578 of 2015: The present writ petition is at
the behest of the petitioners, who are also retired employees
of the Corporation for issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing opposite party Nos.1 and 2 therein to
implement the order dated 8th October, 2012 of this Court in
W.P.(C) No.19405 of 2009 as the pension scheme was not
introduced and to issue such further orders as considered
suitable and expedient.
5. The past events and facts of the case need a brief mention.
In fact, all the writ petitions were disposed of by a common
judgment dated 29th January, 2019 with a conclusion that the
impugned order dated 28th April, 2014 of the State Govt.
denying introduction of the pension scheme cannot be
sustained and hence, the same is liable to be quashed and set
aside with a direction to the State Government to reconsider
the extension of pensionary benefits as per the scheme
approved by them with the concurrence received from the
Finance Department, Government of Odisha vide letter dated
5th October, 1991. Thereafter, intra-court appeals were filed
by the State Government and the Corporation in W.A.
Nos.445, 612 and 613 of 2019 and all were disposed of by a
judgment dated 22nd June,2021, whereby, the Division Bench
of this Court set aside the judgment and restored the writ
petitions for a fresh decision and disposal on the points other
than the one, for which, it was decided after hearing of the
parties within a stipulated period, granting liberty to the State
Government to file affidavit and such other documents
considered relevant for the subject matter. Upon disposal of
Page 3 of 39
the appeals, the writ petitions were freshly heard and finally
disposed of by a judgment dated 23rd December, 2021
reiterating the earlier view expressed thereby quashing the
impugned order dated 28th April, 2014 complying the
directions issued in W.P.(C) No.19405 of 2009 and the
opposite parties to reconsider the extension of the benefit of
pension as per the scheme already approved by the State
Government and duly concurred by the Finance Department
as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Upon such disposal, the State Government and the
Corporation again filed W.A. Nos.584, 585, 586, 607, 608
and 609 of 2022. Since the State Government was allowed to
file affidavit pursuant to the judgment dated 22nd June, 2021
in W.A. Nos.445, 612 and 613 of 2019 and the same was
rejected by order dated 8th December, 2021 by the learned
Single Judge, it was challenged by the State Government and
the Corporation with such other grounds and contentions
advanced. All the appeals were disposed of by the Division
Bench by a common order dated 6th March, 2024 and found
one of the grounds taken therein vis-à-vis rejection of the
affidavit by order dated 8th December, 2021 consequent upon
the judgment in W.A. Nos.445, 612 and 613 of 2019 to be
manifestly erroneous on the premise that it could not have
been in view of the liberty granted by the Division Bench and
the same needed a consideration as was not to be rejected at
the very threshold without adverting to such other grounds
and contentions advanced. On the sole ground of rejection of
Page 4 of 39
the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, the
judgment of the learned Single Judge was interfered with and
set aside restoring the writ petitions for a re-hearing and
disposal. The above are the facts in precise, which led to the
restoration of the writ petitions for disposal on merit
considering the grounds advanced and taking into account the
affidavit of the State Government rejected earlier.
6. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel in W.P.(C) No.18578 of
2015; Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Biswal,
learned counsel in W.P.(C) No.1018 of 2014; Mr. Das,
learned Senior Advocate in W.P.(C) No.8554 of 2014 besides
Ms. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the Corporation and
Mr. Dash, learned AGA for the State.
7. For the sake of brevity, the facts pleaded on record in
W.P.(C) No.1018 of 2014 have been referred to and
discussed. As per such pleading, the Corporation is a Public
Sector Undertaking (PSU) being controlled, managed and
financed by the State Government. The petitioners happened
to be the former employees of the Corporation and
superannuated on attaining respective age of retirement. The
petitioners while in service, the Board of Directors of the
Corporation in their 268th meeting dated 25th March, 1989
decided in principle on the proposal for introduction of
pension scheme for its employees at par with the benefit
extended to the employees of the State Government with
effect from 1st April, 1989. For the said purpose, a
Committee was constituted comprising of the Chairman,
Page 5 of 39
Managing Director, Joint Secretary (Finance), Government
of Odisha), Secretary and Financial Advisor, Orissa Mining
Corporation Ltd. to examine and submit a report in the matter
of introduction of a pension scheme and accordingly, it was
prepared and placed before the Board of Directors on 25th
June, 1981, who on consideration of the same in their 282nd
meeting unanimously resolved to approve such scheme,
consequent thereto, a memorandum was prepared to obtain
approval from the State Government and the Central
Provident Fund Commissioner before its implementation.
The aforesaid decision of the Board of Directors was
forwarded and subsequently, it was approved by the State
Government after due consideration and accordingly, on 5th
October, 1991, the Under Secretary to the Government in the
Department of Steel and Mines addressed a letter to the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation
indicating therein that the proposal for introduction of
pension scheme was approved with due concurrence of the
Finance Department with effect from 1st April, 1989 subject
to modification to the effect that the age of superannuation of
the employees of the Corporation shall be 58 years except in
case of Class-IV employees, for whom, it would be 60 years.
7.1. With regard to grant of exemption as per Section
17(1)(a) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provision Act, 1952 (in short „the EPF Act‟), the Regional
Provident-cum-Commissioner had a correspondence with the
State Government mentioning therein that the Government is
the appropriate authority to consider it and issue necessary
Page 6 of 39
concurrence in exercise of powers conferred thereunder.
Consequent upon receiving the above, the Government in the
Labour and Employment Department allowed such
exemption with a notification dated 1st June, 1985 and it was
duly complied with by the Corporation.
7.2. Notwithstanding the approval of the State Government
upon receiving the concurrence of the Finance Department,
the decision taken by the Board of Directors for introduction
of pension scheme for the employees of the Corporation was
not implemented, for which, the Board of Directors once
again issued a memorandum on 30th March, 2000 for
introduction of the scheme, wherein, it was stated that the
same would be given effect to after receiving approval of the
competent authority, which was not required, as it had
already been approved by the State Government.
7.3. As far as the Corporation is concerned, it has been
placed under the Gold category pursuant to the decision of
the Government of Orissa in Public Enterprises Department
as per Annexure-6 along with two other PSUs named therein.
In the case of one of the PSUs, namely, Odisha Hydro Power
Corporation (OHPC), pensionary benefits were extended to
its employees way back in 2012. But, on some pretext or the
other, the pension provision has not been allowed for the
employees of the Corporation, as a result of which, the
petitioners knocked the portals of this Court in W.P.(C)
No.19405 of 2009 seeking a direction for the State
Government and the Corporation to implement the pension
Page 7 of 39
scheme and it was disposed of by order dated 8th October,
2012 with a direction to the State Government to take a call
in that regard within a stipulated period, whereafter, the
Corporation submitted its proposal on 9th April, 2013 on the
strength of a resolution passed by the Board of Directors,
however, the State Government by order dated 28th April,
2014 as at Annexure-9 refused such proposal thereby
denying the pensionary benefits to its employees.
8. Considering the pleadings of the respective parties, the
writ petitions, as earlier stated, were disposed of by a
common judgment dated 29th January, 2019 and thereafter,
the subsequent events followed, which need no reiteration, as
are borne out of record. In the considered view of the
Division Bench in WA Nos.445, 612 and 613 of 2019
disposed of on 22nd June, 2021, the learned Single Judge had
not taken into account such other grounds and the decision is
rather on the premise that there is violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India and that, the employees of the
Corporation are to be treated on par with two others PSUs,
with conclusion that the intrinsic merit of the proposal of
Management of the Corporation way back in 1991 for
introduction of a pension scheme was not examined, held that
the same needs a re-consideration. Upon such remand, as
stated before, learned Single Judge expressed the same view
and concluded that non-extension of pensionary benefits to
the petitioners, who are the ex-employees of the Corporation
and others with effect from the given date would be
discriminatory and opposed to the basic feature of the
Page 8 of 39
Constitution of India and the concept of equality.
Furthermore, the learned Single Judge declined to accept the
affidavit of the State Government pursuant to the direction of
the Division Bench upon disposal of the intra-court appeals.
The State Government and the Corporation challenged the
same and the matter suffered a remand once again with a
view that the affidavit filed on behalf of the State
Government pursuant to such liberty granted required
consideration and could not have been discarded at the very
inception. The aforesaid developments having taken place,
this Court is to re-appreciate and examine such grounds
advanced by the respective parties for a decision on merit.
9. At the cost of the repetition, it is stated and pleaded on
record that the petitioners are the retired employees of the
Corporation and had approached this Court in W.P.(C)
No.19405 of 2009 for a direction to the opposite parties to
implement the Pension Scheme for all the employees of the
Corporation within a stipulated period and it was disposed of
by an order dated 5th October, 1991 as at Annexure-1. When
said the matter was subjudice before this Court, the
Chairman-cum-MD, OMC issued a letter to the Government
as per Annexure-2 to accord necessary approval for extension
of pensionary benefits to the employees of the Corporation
by following due rules and procedure of OCS (Pension)
Rules indicating therein the fact that the Government has
extended pension to the employees of OHPC, a Gold
category PSU from the date of its incorporation i.e. on 1st
April, 1996. In the meanwhile, W.P.(C) No.19405 of 2009
Page 9 of 39
was disposed of with a direction to the Government to take a
decision in terms of the request of the Corporation. Since the
said direction was not complied within the timeline fixed,
CONTC No.539 of 2013 was filed, but at last, it was
dismissed by order dated 22nd September, 2015. In any case,
the claim of the petitioners is for implementation of the
Pension Scheme to the employees of the Corporation with the
pleading on record that the directions of the Government to
take a decision in that behalf in W.P.(C) No.19405 of 2009
was openly flouted. In fact, the request was made to the
Government by the Corporation and it was responded to vide
Annexure-1 stating therein that the draft proposal for
introduction of the Pension Scheme for the employees of the
OMC w.e.f 1st April, 2009 had been approved subject to
modification therein with regard to the age of superannuation
of the employees of the Corporation. As earlier stated, such a
request was received by the Government and in view of
Annexure-1, it is revealed that the draft proposal of the
Pension Scheme received approval of the Government with
the concurrence of the Finance Department dated 9th August,
1999. The Corporation, thereafter, moved the CPF
Commissioner for exemption referring to the
recommendation for such exemption by the RPFC,
Bhubaneswar. In response to the above, CPFC informed that
RPFC has the authority to forward the proposal. It is claimed
that exemption under Section 17(1)(c) of the EPF Act was
granted by the Government way back in June, 1985, But, the
same was not brought to the notice of the CPFC by the
Page 10 of 39
Corporation or RPF Commissioner, Bhubaneswar. In 1995,
the Public Enterprises Department, Government of Odisha
directed all the PSUs to formulate suitable pension schemes
for their employees. But by that time, the Corporation had
already adopted a Scheme of its own with due approval of the
State Government. In fact, the Board of Directors of the
Corporation held their 321st meeting on 30th March, 2000 and
decided to implement the Pension Scheme for the employees
of OMC w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. However, it was advised to
apply before the competent Authority. Followed by a long
break, again on 23rd March, 2006, the Board approved the
OMC Retiring Employees Benefits Scheme to be
implemented prospectively upon receiving the Government
approval and it was also resolved that the employees retiring
after 1st April, 1989 are only to be eligible to receive the
benefit under the Scheme. The pleading is that the RPF
Commissioner, Bhubaneswar, since, had no authority to grant
exemption under Section 17(1)(c) of the EPF Act, rejected
the request, as such exemption had already been allowed by
the Government in 1985. The fact that the Corporation,
without referring to the earlier exemption granted by the
appropriate Government, again approached the RPF
Commissioner on 31st January, 2003, who has admittedly no
power to consider the same under the EPF Act. Upon such
rejection, the Management of the Corporation in order to
overcome the financial condition of the retired employees,
introduced OMC Retiring Employees Benefits Scheme in
their 355th meeting of Board of Directors held on 23rd March,
Page 11 of 39
2006 and it was sent to the Government for approval,
received back with suggestions to add certain provisions and
to resubmit but thereafter, there was no further progress.
Finding no other way out, the retired employees filed the writ
petitions for a direction to the Management of the
Corporation to implement the Pension Scheme and in
W.P.(C) No.19405 of 2009, the order dated 8th October, 2012
was passed with a direction to the Principal Secretary to
Government, Steel and Mines Department to take a decision
on the proposal received from the Corporation. On 26th April,
2013, the Under Secretary, Steel and Mines Department,
Government of Orissa by letter No. 3719 requested the
Corporation to inform as to why the Pension Scheme for the
its employees was not given effect to in spite of approval of
the Government and concurrence of the Finance Department
but the OMC Management failed to reply. Since no decision
was taken by the Corporation, W.P.(C) No.1018 of 2013 was
filed, during pendency of which, the Government by Office
Order dated 28th April, 2014 denied pension to the OMC
employees in response to the letter No.4587 dated 9th April,
2013 of the CMD, OMC, which is stated to be in violation of
the directions issued in W.P.(C) No.19405 of 2009.
10. The admitted fact is that the OMC Management in its
268th meeting of the Board of Directors held on 25th March,
1989 decided introduction of Pension Scheme for the
employees of the Corporation and again in 282nd meeting
dated 25th June, 1991, it was reiterated for the approval of the
State Government and the CPF Commissioner having been
Page 12 of 39
obtained. The State Government by letter dated 5th October,
1991 intimated the OMC that it has approved the scheme
with the concurrence of the Finance Department. In fact, on
the basis of the communication of the Government, the
contention is that when the proposal for implementation of
pension scheme has been duly approved and concurred by the
Finance Department, there was no need to further consider
the matter, inasmuch as, no further request could have been
made by the Corporation for reconsideration. It is the
contention that the Government failed to demonstrate that
any such decision in the year 1991 for and in respect of the
pension scheme vis-à-vis the employees of the Corporation to
have either been annulled or varied or withdrawn at any point
of time and therefore, the same having been approved, it
could not be allowed to change the stand, all more when, the
same to be a benevolent measure keeping in view the interest
of the retired employees of OMC. It is pleaded that in view of
Section 17 of the EPF Act, the State Government exempted
the Corporation, but in 2014, such a decision not to extend
the pensionary benefits to its employees is an arbitrary
decision and without jurisdiction. Referring to Article 14 of
the Constitution of India, the contention is that its strikes at
arbitrariness for a cause of action, which must necessarily
involve negation of equality, as such doctrine evenly to apply
to Executive actions. Since, the Corporation instead of acting
upon the approval of the pension scheme, remained aloof and
did not seek any clarification and thereafter, the Government
rejected such grant of pension, in view of Article 12 of the
Page 13 of 39
Constitution of India, it is further pleaded, any such action
could not have altered the position, unless and until, the same
is in contravention of any statutory law. The contention is
that the Government or for that matter, the authority is
estopped from changing the stand already taken regard being
had to the future of the employees of the Corporation.
11. The Corporation is a Public Sector Unit (PSU).
Admittedly, the Board of Directors of the Corporation in
1989 proposed in principle to introduce a pension scheme for
its employees. It is needless to mention that the Corporation
is one of the oldest PSUs involved in exploration of mineral
resources in the State, ever since its existence. As provided
under the rules of the Corporation, the employees at the time
of retirement would receive benefits of gratuity and also
employer‟s contribution to the provident fund. In view of the
fact that the benefits do not meet the ends of the employees,
such a pension scheme was proposed with the decision of the
Board of Directors of the Corporation. But as earlier stated,
in spite of the approval of the State Government and
concurrence of the Finance Department, it is could not be
implemented. As has been discussed before, the Board of
Directors of the Corporation failed to respond, as a result of
which, the pension scheme was put to cold storage. In fact,
after revision of the pay scale of Government employees in
1989, a resolution was passed by the Department of Public
Enterprises, Government of Odisha with regard to
rationalization of the pay and allowances of the employees in
the Management cadres of the State Public Sector Enterprises
Page 14 of 39
and even though, thereafter, the recommendation was made
by the Board of Directors and it received concurrence of the
Finance Department and approval of the State Government, it
is best known to the authorities concerned, for having not
implemented the same.
12. It is not in dispute that the appointment orders of the
employees of OMC do have a condition that the appointees
would be required to contribute CPF in accordance with the
rules of the Corporation with its amendments made from time
to time. In fact, the affidavit of the State Government dated
14th July, 2021 is filed with the copies of the appointment
orders at Annexure-A/1 and B/1. A copy of the OMC
Employees Provident Fund Rules is at Annexure-C/1 to the
same. Furthermore, a copy of the advertisement of the year
2019 for recruitment of the Executives by the Corporation as
at Annexure-D/1 is placed reliance on to plead that the OMC
services to be not pensionable. In other words, the employees
of the OMC joined with service conditions which excluded
pension but with a provision of CPF. As per the said
affidavit, the employees of the OHPC are not similarly
situated and therefore, the employees of the Corporation
cannot be treated equally. In fact, it is pleaded that OHPC has
a pension scheme for its employees redeployed/transferred
from various Hydro Projects of the erstwhile OSEB as well
as Government of Odisha, who were absorbed therein from
the date of its creation on 1st April, 1986. However, such is
not the case of the Corporation, inasmuch as, its employees
are entitled to CPF only and while claiming so, a copy of the
Page 15 of 39
letter received as at Annexure-E/1 is referred to. It is further
stated therein that OHPC extended the scheme of uniform
pensionary benefits to its non-pensionary regular employees
by a Notification dated 6th September, 2012 followed by an
amendment dated 21st November, 2015 and the same is
applicable only to such employees, who returned the
employer‟s share with interest to OHPC on the date of
retirement and that, payment of the TI as sanctioned by the
Government from time to time is payable subject to certain
stipulations and placed on record, the above notifications as
at Annexures-F/1 and G/1 respectively. A copy of the letter
received from OPGC without any pension scheme is also
enclosed at Annexure-H/1 to the said affidavit further stating
that its employees are provided only one-time payment
towards pension as per Public Enterprises Department
Circular from the 3rd March, 2017 as at Annexure-I/1 and
therefore, the claim is that the employees of the Corporation
cannot be considered to be on equal footing with them as
well as the employees of OHPC for the purpose of grant of
pension. Furthermore, it is pleaded that the Resolution of the
Government in Steel and Mines Department dated 5 th
October, 1991 lost its relevance in view of Annexure-J/1. It is
further pleaded that such exemption under Section 17(1)(c)
of the EPF Act from the operation of the CPF Scheme could
not be obtained by the Corporation from RPFC, inasmuch as,
the exemption has been rejected thereafter by EPFO,
Government of India with a letter issued by the Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner as at Annexure-K/1 and
Page 16 of 39
during the intervening period, the State Government
introduced a new restructured contribution pension scheme
w.e.f. 1st January, 2005 vide dated 13th July, 2006 i.e.
Annexure-L/1 thereby abandoning the traditional pension
scheme. A letter from the OMC at Annexure-M/1 is referred
to in the affidavit stating that pursuant to the order in
W.P.(C).928 of 2011 dated 10th February, 2011 by a speaking
order as per Annexure-1, the representations of the
employees received were disposed of indicating therein the
fact that the scheme approved in 1991 by the State
Government was no more under consideration for
implementation and that apart, the Corporation has already
implemented the Circular dated 23rd March, 2019 of the
Public Enterprises Department with regard to one-time
payment of financial benefits to its retired employees as per
Annexure-N/1. It is stated therein that OMC‟s Board of
Directors, therefore, in their meeting held on 29th January,
2019 approved introduction of OMC Employees
Superannuation Scheme and in that regard, several
representations have been received from the employees and
Union/Association requesting implementation of the same
enclosed at Annexure-K/1 series, but it has been received
with a response as to the following that the rules of business
mandate the P.E. Department to lay down the general policy
and guidelines for effective management etc. of the State
Public Sector Undertakings referring to Annexure-Q/1 and
since introduction of pension in any one PSU has wider
ramification, it is, therefore, to be considered as a policy
Page 17 of 39
matter to be dealt with by the Department for all State PSUs
and even though OMC is a subject within its domain, any
such advice of the Department is binding on the
Administrative Department concerned.
13. It is contended from the side of the petitioners that at the
time of disposal of the writ appeals, no liberty was granted to
the Corporation, whereas, such an opportunity was only for
the State Government and therefore, the findings rendered by
this Court and in the judgment dated 29th January, 2019
having not been set aside, it has attained finality and apart
from the above, none of the opposite parties filed any review
questioning the same and most importantly the Corporation
did not challenge consciously for the simple reason that it
also questioned the Governmental action for not extending
pensionary benefit to its employees. The submission is that
the State Government filed the review against the judgment
dated 26th June, 2021 which was dismissed on 15th July,
2021. The further contention is that the State Government at
no stretch of imagination can be said to be an aggrieved party
since there is no financial impact on the Government, if in
case, the pension scheme is introduced and furthermore, the
Corporation is separate and an independent entity and
therefore, the Government has no pervasive control over it
and that apart, it cannot take a stand which was never ever
raised before, when the writ petitions were disposed of.
14. Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the Odisha Mining
Workers‟ Federation would submit that the principle of
Page 18 of 39
denial of natural justice, a stand which has been taken by the
State Government in the appeal is preposterous. It is
contended that the Corporation sought approval of the CPFC
vide letter dated 12th March, 1992 and was advised to submit
the same after such further steps being taken and therefore, it
cannot be said that such proposal was ever rejected. It is
submitted that new scheme EPS, 95 was introduced by the
Government of India in lieu of existing family pension
scheme, 1972 and the Corporation devised a separate scheme
and thereafter, sought exemption from RPFC but it was
refused on the ground that the scheme in question is not
applicable to all and under such circumstances, the decision
cannot be said or treated to be a rejection of the PF Authority
of the proposal vis-à-vis pension scheme of 1991. Rather, it
was a refusal to introduce a substituted scheme to the EPS,
95 and besides that, since, the subject matter is a pension
benefit for the retired employees w.e.f 1st April, 1989, the
CPFC has no role to play and the corpus fund is structured
from the contribution of the retired employees, which they
have received as management contributions. Mr. Das, learned
Senior Advocate further submits that the Board of Directors
of OMC while considering the implementation of the pension
scheme advised the M.D. on 30th March, 2000 to arrange
funds required for implementation of the same, as was
approved earlier by the Government and in that regard, steps
for creation and registration of a Pension Trust were taken
and for a certification of the Income Tax Authority in
recognizing the Trust for exemption of its contribution under
Page 19 of 39
the I.T. Act and virtually, the Trust was registered and I.T.
certification was obtained and that alone, proves beyond
doubt that the Corporation was interested in 1991, 2000 and
lastly in 2012 to have it, which is evident from its letters to
the Government dated 1st August, 2012, however,
unfortunately, there was a U-turn. With the above
developments having been narrated, the contention of Mr.
Das, learned Senior Advocate is that the Corporation cannot
take a contrary stand or a decision completely opposite to the
one earlier proposed.
15. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the
Government in Personal Enterprises Department classified all
the PSUs in the State into the following categories viz;
Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze on the basis of turnover,
profit and other parameters and the Corporation along with
OHPC, IDCO & OPGC have been placed in the Gold
category. It is claimed that the OHPC after bifurcation
recruited employees in a similar manner like OMC, who had
not inherited the pension benefits similar to the Government
employees or employees of OSEB and therefore, denial of
pension benefit to the Corporation, while granting the same
to OHPC is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. It is further stated that the Personal Enterprises
Department engaged a Management Consulting Agency of
world repute to design a uniform pension scheme for all the
Gold category PSUs and while the same was in process, the
Government approved the pension scheme similar with that
of the employees of OHPC in the year 2012, whereafter, the
Page 20 of 39
Corporation requested the Government to allow it, a Gold
category PSU like OHPC to implement the same and
informed that the Government approval is already in place
since 1st October, 1991, but despite such a request, it was
rejected on 28th April, 2014.
16. The Corporation on its own proposed to introduce a
pension scheme for the employees in 1989 after an elaborate
exercise subject to Government sanction. It is contended that
such a decision was also subject to the approval of the CPFC,
which was unnecessary by claiming that one has the option
not to transfer the employer‟s contribution with interest to the
pension fund and hence, to continue with the CPF. It is
claimed that when there is such a scheme and any such
exemption from PF authority would have been a mandatory
requirement, when an employee is required to divert and
deposit the matching employer‟s contribution in any other
scheme like pension but not in the CPF during his service
tenure, against the aforesaid background, with approval of
the Government having concurrence of the Finance
Department, it was the duty of the Corporation to ensure
implementation of the same and cannot, therefore, be allowed
to challenge its own decision. It is further claimed that the
OMC is cash rich PSU and can manage and afford to meet
the entire burden of pension from its internal accruals
availing Income Tax benefits.
17. Advancing an argument that OMC is an independent
entity though a State-owned Corporation incorporated under
Page 21 of 39
Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, the State
Government does not have any control over the same and in
that connection, Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate submits
that in a similar case, SAIL was not held to be a Department
of Union of India and refers to a decision reported in AIR
1982 SC 694. It is contended that the Corporation is not a
Department of the State, which, therefore, cannot interfere in
its functions except otherwise permissible under law and
admittedly, the case at hand does not lie within the domain of
the Government and in any case, there has been an approval
of the Government with the concurrence of the Finance
Department, which has never been withdrawn thereafter and
hence, a different stand from what has been approved by the
parent Department cannot be taken at a later point of time
and that too when, the Corporation was never intimated to
resubmit the scheme for further approval, on the contrary, it
only suggested modification, hence, the pension scheme was
required to be implemented with the changes suggested.
18. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate for other
petitioners highlighted upon the decision of the Government
initially approving the pension scheme upon receiving the
concurrence of the Finance Department and it was all along
through till such time when put to dormant file. The
contention is that the Board of Directors of the Corporation
examined the pension scheme and proposed the parameters
and also the manner in which the fund is to be appropriated
in order to provide the pensionary benefits and after having
such an exercise so elaborate and received the Government
Page 22 of 39
sanction duly concurred by the Finance Department, any such
decision thereafter leading to the rejection of the scheme is
unjustified, rather, a decision which blatantly undermined
such approval and also frustrated the legitimate expectations
of its employees.
19. On the contrary, Ms. Rath, learned Senior Advocate for
the Corporation vehemently argued that there is no rule or
any service condition for the employees of the Corporation
for pension. The contention is that the petitioners joined in a
non-pensionable posts and retired in the meantime and do not
have any pre-existing right, rather, have approached the
Court to create such a right, which is not permissible under
law and whatever materials are on record, the same merely
presupposes a preparation or intention of the Corporation to
have a policy for a pension and as such, no substantive right
of pension can be claimed by them. Referring to the
documents annexed to W.P.(C) No. 8554 of 2014, Ms. Rath,
learned Senior Advocate would further submit that it was an
action merely in the nature of a proposal without any final
decision being taken and that apart, the pension scheme was
to be implemented by way of a rule, which did not exist and
therefore, working towards any such proposal creates no right
of pension and any such decision of Corporation was never
finalized until approval of the State Government. It is also
submitted that Rule 13 of the Pension Scheme would
suggests that unless any such Rule under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India was framed, pension cannot be granted.
It is contended by Ms. Rath, learned Senior Advocate that the
Page 23 of 39
State Government suggested changes in the draft scheme and
hence, it shows that right to pension had never seen the light
of the day. Referring to the memorandum of proceedings at
Annexure-4 to the writ petition, it is claimed that the action
was to have rules for being formulated and in so far as
Annexure-4 is concerned, the Corporation at best can be said
to have looking at the liability and scrutinizing the various
financial aspects to have such a scheme. Referring to
Annexure-6 thereof, it is claimed that there was a clear
admission on that part of the OMC regarding the earlier
scheme having not been implemented as on 1st August, 2012,
hence was the request to follow the OCS (Pension) Rules and
considering the entirety of the case, it has to be held that the
Pension Scheme, 1991 was abandoned by the Corporation. In
support of the contention that pension cannot be claimed
unless it finds source from a statutory law, Ms. Rath, learned
Senior Advocate cited a decision on the Apex Court in U.P.
Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association Vrs.
State of U.P. and others MANU SC 0792/2024). It is also
contended that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing
the State Government to introduce a pension scheme and in
that regard, the following decisions, such as, 1992 SUPP (1)
SCC 548, 2008(2) SCC 280 and 1986(4) SCC 362 have
been referred to.
20. Mr. Dash, learned AGA for the State justifies the
impugned decision highlighting upon the materials on record
with reference to the affidavit filed with the contention that
Page 24 of 39
the employees of the Corporation cannot demand any such
pension, when such a provision is not feasible.
21. Having considered the pleadings on record and
submissions of learned counsels for the respective parties, a
question may arise with regard to the stand of the
Corporation vis-à-vis proposal of the pension scheme. One
wonders, why and for what reasons, the Corporation changed
its course mid-way in pursuing implementation of the
pension scheme, especially when, the draft scheme had
received approval of the State Government with the
concurrence of the Finance Department. In fact, it can be said
that the Corporation has taken a complete turnaround with a
stand challenging the very pension scheme with the claim
that despite the Government‟s approval, it was abandoned.
The Court rather finds the Corporation is at shoulder to
shoulder with the State Government in opposing the pension
scheme for its employees and quite strangely for no obvious
reasons.
22. Notwithstanding the above opinion of this Court
regarding the conduct of the Corporation, a decision shall
have to be taken as to if any such proposal of a pension
scheme of the Corporation even opposed at present should be
implemented with a direction to the State Government for its
consideration with suitable modifications. On a reading of the
Pension Scheme, as it was drafted and styled as the Orissa
Mining Corporation Ltd. Employees‟ Pension Rules, 1991,
the total qualifying service to be counted as per the Orissa
Page 25 of 39
Pension Rules, 1977 is held to be applicable being stipulated
in Rule 7 thereof. According to Rule 8 of the said Rules,
pension fund of the Corporation would be constituted (i) from
the accumulated employer‟s share as on 1st April, 1989
standing to the credit of the employees along with the interest
optimum for pension scheme; (ii) initial contribution amount
to be paid by the Corporation as decided by the Board of
Directors; (iii) the annual contribution as may be required
would be as per actuarial valuation from time to time. The
draft Rules further stipulates as per Rule 9 that the pension
fund shall be managed by the Board of Trustees with the
detailed rules framed with the approval of the Management.
Notwithstanding any such exercise being undertaken by the
OMC and renewed after a break, which, according to Ms.
Rath, learned Senior Advocate, has resulted in abandonment
of such scheme. It is not known as to what really prevailed
upon the Management not to respond to the suggestions of
the State Government and to maintain a stony silence.
Ironically, upon renewal of such a demand and for
reconsideration by the State Government, it has led to the
rejection of the scheme.
23. Whether pension can be claimed by the employees of the
Corporation? In absence of any rule or statute, Mr. Rath,
learned Senior Advocate would submit that no pension is
permissible. In U.P. Roadways Retired Officials and
Officers Association (supra), the Apex Court, while dealing
with a similar question in relation to the employees of U.P.
Roadways in juxtaposition to their service conditions
Page 26 of 39
distinctly different from the employees of the Government
held and observed that such employees are not entitled to
pension as all of them held non-pensionable posts. In the
decision (supra) referring to a case law in Prabhu Narain
and others Vrs. State of U.P. and others (2004) 13 SCC
662, it is held that pension cannot be allowed to the
employees of the U.P. Roadways. In Prabhu Narayan case,
the Apex Court observed that no doubt pension is not a
bounty, it is valuable right given to an employee but in the
first place, it must be shown that the employee is entitled to
pension under a particular rule or scheme, as the case may be.
At the end referring to other decision in U.P. Roadways
(supra) held and concluded that there is a common thread in
all the case laws to the effect that pension is a constitutional
right, for which, an employee is entitled at the time of
superannuation, however, it can only be claimed, when
permissible under the rules or a scheme. It is further observed
therein that one who is not holding a pensionable post cannot
claim pension nor a writ court can issue mandamus directing
the employer to provide pension to him.
24. A.R. Zakki (supra), the Apex Court observed that a writ
of mandamus cannot be issued to the Legislature to enact a
particular legislation and same is as regards the Executive
when it exercises the power to make rules, which are in the
nature of sub-ordinate legislation and reiterated the view
expressed earlier in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare
Association Vrs. Union of India and another (1989) 4 SCC
187, wherein, it was concluded that no High Court can direct
Page 27 of 39
a Legislature or for that matter, an Executive exercising
legislative powers to enact a law which it has been
empowered to do. The above decision was in connection with
recommendation made by the High Court with regard to the
provisions of the Judicial Recruitment Rules since therein
various aspects adverted to by the Public Service
Commission needed an in-depth examination, which could
not have been ignored while making any such
recommendation. The law is well settled that a writ of
mandamus cannot be issued by a High Court directing the
Legislature and Executive Authority usurping powers by way
of sub-ordinate legislature to make laws and there is no
quarrel over the legal position. The decision in Oriental
Bank of Commerce Vrs. Sunder Lal Jain and another
(2008) 2 SCC 280 is referred to by Ms. Rath, learned Senior
Advocate to contend that this Court cannot direct the State
Government to grant pension and in view of the fact that a
writ of mandamus cannot be issued for the same. In the above
decision, the principles on which the writ of mandamus may
be issued have been stated with reference to an authority in
the Law of Extra Ordinary Legal Remedies, wherein, it is
expounded that the mandamus is a highly prerogative writ
usually issued requiring an inferior court or authority to do a
particular thing specified which appertains to the officer‟s
duty assigned. It has been further outlined therein that
mandamus is not a writ of right and its issuance
unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the
Court subject always to the well settled principles which have
Page 28 of 39
been established by the Courts; an action in mandamus is not
governed by the principles of ordinary litigation whether the
matters alleged on one side and not denied on other side are
taken as true and judgment pronounced thereon as a course;
while mandamus is class as a legal remedy, issuance of
which, is largely controlled by equitable principles and before
granting the writ, the Court may and should look to the larger
public interest, which may be concerned. The above
principles have been adopted in catena of decisions of the
Apex Court, as further referred to in Sunder Lal Jain (supra)
and it is apposite to make a mention of the relevant extract of
the same, which is, hence, reproduced herein below:
"12. These very principles have been adopted in
our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic
Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. Vrs. Sipahi Singh
after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj
Sathramdas Lalvani Vrs. N.M. Shah, Rai
Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) Vrs. Nalanda College
and Umakant Saran (Dr.) Vrs. State of Bihar,
this Court observed as follows:
"15.....There is abundant authority in favour of
the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be
granted only in a case where there is a statutory
duty imposed upon the officer concerned and
there is a failure on the part of that officer to
discharge the statutory obligation. The chief
function of a writ is to compel performance of
public duties prescribed by statute and to keep
subordinate tribunals and officers exercising
public functions within the limit of their
jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order
that mandamus may issue to compel the
Page 29 of 39
authorities to do something, it must be shown
that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty
and the aggrieved party has a legal right under
the statute to enforce its performance...."
Therefore, in order that a writ of mandamus may
be issued, there must be a legal right with the
party asking for the writ to compel the
performance of some statutory duty cast upon
the authorities. The respondents have not been
able to show that there is any statute or rule
having the force of law which casts a duty on the
appellant Bank to declare their account as NPA
from 31.3.2000 and apply RBI Guidelines to
their case."
25. Mr. Rath, learned Senior Advocate refers to yet another
Supreme Court decision in State of Kerala Vrs. Smt. A.
Lakshmikutty (1986) 4 SCC 632 to argue that in the case at
hand, this Court is not to issue a writ of mandamus in absence
of any statutory duty imposed on the State Government. The
sum and substance of the contention is that when there is no
statutory obligation to grant pension to the employees of the
Corporation, a writ of mandamus shall not lie.
26. This Court is well aware of the limitations prescribed.
When there is no law in place or any legislation in force
introduced either by the Legislature or the Executive in
exercise of delegated authority to make legislation, the High
Court is not to issue any such writ. In order to issue a writ of
mandamus, there must be a legal right with the party
aggrieved insisting upon the due performance by the
authority on account of the statutory duty cast upon him. But,
at the same time, one has to make out a distinction in a case
where a direction may be issued to consider a particular
provision, like the present one, for a pension scheme asked
for by the employees of an organization, a PSU, keeping in
view the demand, necessity and the need, having regard to
the attendant circumstances around. It may be an order or a
direction instead of a writ of mandamus issued by the Court
paving the way for the State Government to explore and
examine all such possibilities to have a provision of pension
in respect of the employees of a PSU. In the instant case, the
Corporation is a Gold category PSU and has been on a
successful run for quite some time and unquestionably, has
profitable returns and taking in to account the draft scheme
proposed, it would not be inappropriate or unjustified to issue
a direction to the State Government to invent and be
experimental to have such a beneficial pension provision for
its retired employees. It is not to be equated with issuance of
writ of mandamus by the Court. Any such direction is not to
be misconstrued either. The Court is fully cognizant of the
fact that the petitioners and other employees, retired in the
meanwhile, had been in non-pensionable posts but at the
same time, is of the view that a direction is needed to be
issued to examine and explore the ways and means to have
the pension scheme for the employees of the Corporation, a
demand which is long pending and is feasible. The Court is
also of the view that such demand should not be equated with
any other PSUs and hence, is to be independently examined
by not paying too much of emphasis on the right of equality.
27. A demand to have a pension scheme hinges on variety of
factors also depending on the organizational structure of a
unit. The State Government and its functionaries since are
involved even though OMC is an independent entity and
them having no direct control and management over it must
have to respond in a manner expected taking into account all
such parameters and consequences, while taking decision on
a pension scheme. Whether a scheme to be brought in is
really viable and acceptable for a PSU or State-owned
organization is a question to be thought of and answered
necessarily followed by suitable recommendations. But, to
distinguish such a claim of the Corporation with reference to
another PSU having a pension scheme and on the ground that
there is a need for a universal pension policy for all the PSUs
thereby not having a holistic approach especially when a long
pending demand is abandoned half-way for whatever reasons,
should not prevail upon the State Government which should
rather examine it followed by such suggestions needed to
make it possible. Interestingly, request for a pension scheme
was examined, proposed and recommended by the OMC
Management and it received approval of the State
Government in 1991 and that again upon receiving
concurrence of the Finance Department, it may well be said
that the Management of the Corporation failed its employees
for taking no steps in response to the suggestions received. It
would not even be incorrect to hold that any such demand
when renewed, the State Government was required to
respond in a way, as is normally anticipated. The Court does
not cast any aspersion or bad intent against the Corporation
while examining the demand of its employees, but
somewhere and at some point of time, the process could not
be streamlined, rather, the exercise stood derailed. No doubt,
the State Government has examined the plea but as it appears,
specifically considering the affidavit filed by opposite party
No.1 pursuant to the direction in W.A. No.613 of 2019, the
OMC employees, whether to have a pension scheme or
otherwise, appears to have been scrutinized by having a
comparative study with reference to the pension scheme of
the employees of OHPC. The Court is of the view that the
manner in which the OHPC was brought into existence,
consequent upon, reform in power sector with the employees
of the erstwhile OSEB and State Government being
redeployed or transferred on the date of creation in 1996 may
have played a pivotal role to have pension for their
employees. But the Court is of the humble view that the
demand of the OMC employees is not to be compared with
OHPC and therefore, an independent examination is
necessary. Such a demand of the employees of the OMC
cannot even be turned down with a plea that all the PSUs
need to have uniform pension scheme. At the cost of
reiteration, it is stated that OMC has its own organizational
structure and identity with required needs and demand, which
are to be sincerely taken care of. According to the Court, the
scheme could have been suitably modified with such further
recommendation made.
28. The OMC with a changed plea at present can be said to
have responded in an outlandish manner peculiarly extending
support in backing the State Government, more so when, it
has been the creator and has become the destroyer with a
clear intention to abandon the scheme, it had once conceived
and proposed. It may also be alleged that OMC Management
failed to rise to the occasion. What the Court is intended to
convey is that the entire exercise ended in futile despite so
much of progress and therefore, the State Government, in
view of intent and purport of the scheme, which is unlikely
cause any real burden on the State‟s exchequer, is required to
reconsider the same for the Corporation employees with
whatever necessary and appropriate modifications. The Court
is to reiterate the view that the direction as above is not to be
misconstrued as a writ of mandamus issued to the State
Government to grant the pension but to explore the
possibility when it had received the approval earlier with the
concurrence of the Finance Department. It is not a case,
where, there is a law or rule in place but the direction is for
exploring the ways to have pension scheme for the employees
of the OMC as was suggested and recommended by its Board
of Directors. Any such decision should be duly examined and
explored to ensure that a more acceptable and viable pension
scheme is put in place for the retired employees of the
Corporation with all such stipulations therein, an exercise,
which is needed to be undertaken without being influenced
by the earlier decisions of the State Government and if
necessary, to have a Core Committee duly constituted to
make it happen.
29. As far as the legitimate expectation of the employees of
the Corporation is concerned, it was responded to by Ms.
Rath, learned Senior Advocate by contending that there can
be no such expectancy in absence of statutory duty or
promises to provide them the pension. In law, a legitimate
expectation refers to a reasonable and justifiable expectation
held by individuals that an administrative authority to act in a
particular way on a promise or consistent past practice.
Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioners and all other
employees retired from OMC had the knowledge from the
very beginning that they joined in non-pensionable posts. It
cannot be said that any of them ever had any expectation on
account of such past decision for a pension or at any point of
time, the State Government did ever promise them to grant
pension in future. The doctrine of legitimate expectation
essentially imposes a duty on public bodies to act fairly,
prevent them from acting in an arbitrary or unreasonable
manner, which is to breach a promise or established practice.
In other words, such an expectation may arise from an
express promise made by a public authority or functionaries
of the Government or from a consistent past practice
followed by them which is not a legal right, so to say and
hence, not enforceable in a court of law and it can be
overridden with the public interest or demand. In essence, the
doctrine ensures that public authority acts fairly and without
prejudice to anyone. It is based on the principle that a man
should keep his words all the more when the promise is not a
bare promise but made with the intention that the other party
should act upon it. The doctrine is not a specific legal right
engraved in a particular statute or rule book and for the first
time, an attempt was made to establish its principles in the
case of Council of Civil Service Unions and others Vrs.
Minister of Civil Service (1985) AC 374. The Apex Court
described the doctrine more precisely in Ram Pravesh Singh
and others Vrs. State of Bihar and others 2006 AIR SCW
5312, wherein, it has been concluded that a person can be
said to have a legitimate expectation of a particular treatment,
if any representation or promise is made by an authority
either expressly or impliedly or if the regular and consistent
past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation
in the normal course. The Court is not to further elaborate
and burden the judgment with other case laws since the
doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked in the
case of the OMC employees, who all along were fully aware
of the fact that they joined and held non-pensionary posts and
as such, there was no any past practice or ever had any such
promise for them to have the provision of pension. So, the
Court is in agreement with the contention of Ms. Rath,
learned Senior Advocate for the Corporation that its
employees cannot demand pension with a plea that there has
been a legitimate expectation.
30. In course of hearing, a decision of the Apex Court in
Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation
Federation Vrs. B. Narasimha Reddy and others (2011) 9
SCC 286 has been referred to at the Bar to contend that the
decision of the State Government is vitiated and suffers from
arbitrariness. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Advocate submits
that when there was approval of the State Government
initially with the concurrence of the Finance Department to
have a pension scheme for the OMC employees, it could not
have been negated with the impugned decision thereafter and
such an action with a decision to deny the same defeats
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been responded
to by Mr. Dash, learned AGA for the State and also Ms. Rath,
learned Senior Advocate for the OMC by contending that
there is no arbitrariness as the State Government honestly
responded to the demand with a final decision taken towards
the end. In the decision (supra), the Apex Court held and
observed that Article 14 of the Constitution of India strikes at
the very root of arbitrariness because an action which is
arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of equality and
reiterated the doctrine of arbitrariness with a conclusion that
the same is not restricted only to executive actions but also
applies to the Legislature. It is also held therein that a party
has to satisfy that the action was reasonable, not done in
unreasonable manner or capriciously or at pleasure without
adequate rationality and certainly does not depend on the will
alone. In the instant case, in respect of the employees of the
Corporation, the action is alleged as arbitrary for the reason
that the State Government despite having offered approval to
the pension scheme with the Finance Department
concurrence, emerged with a decision contrary to the
viewpoint and a stand, which it had taken before. On what
ground, the pension scheme was rejected later without any
decision to vary or supersede the same, is not discernable
from the last affidavit on record. Though, there is no vested
right or a legitimate expectation, while demanding pension
but the State Government failed to respond reaching at a
decision taking into account all the relevant factors. Any such
variance in the action may create a sense of arbitrariness, as
in the present case, where the employees of the OMC and its
Management had approached the State Government and even
received the approval and concurrence of the Finance
Department for a pension scheme and thereafter, there was a
complete upside down. The conclusion of the Court is that
even in absence of legitimate expectation to have a pension
provision for the OMC employees, the State Government
should not have taken a decision one way at a given point of
time and without supersession, changed it later on by not
really exploring all such possibilities to have the pension
scheme in place instead of unduly comparing the Corporation
with other PSUs and in particular, OHPC. A comparison
though at times is necessary to examine different aspects but
that does not mean, the OMC cannot have any such pension
scheme, independently. The scheme cannot either be rejected
in contemplation of an idea that a uniform pension policy
should be in place for all the PSUs. It is reiterated that the
entire effort and endeavour should rather be for the State
Government and the Corporation to work in tandem and
harmony to examine all the aspects to have the pension
scheme fine-tuned and finalized with suitable modifications
keeping in view the fact that the same would be a beneficial
piece of provision greatly desired by the employees of the
Corporation.
31. With above conclusion being reached at, the Court,
having examined the perspective of the Govt. with reference
to the affidavit filed by the State pursuant to the liberty
granted by order dated 8th December, 2021 of the Division
Bench in W.A. Nos.445, 612 and 613 of 2019 and also that of
the Corporation, is not in a position to hold that the whole of
the exercise largely undertaken for a much anticipated
pension scheme for the retired employees of the OMC should
not be allowed to die down, rather, it is required to be
brought to a logical end. Hence, it is ordered.
32. In the result, the writ petitions stand allowed. As a logical
sequitur, the impugned decision dated 28th April, 2014 of the
State Govt. is hereby set aside with the direction to reconsider
the extension of the pension scheme for the retired employees
of the OMC duly approved by the State Govt. with the
concurrence of the Finance Department vide its letter dated
5th October, 1991 at the earliest preferably within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment regard being had to the observations made herein
above.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Tudu/Balaram/Kabita
