Jitendra Kumar Dalai vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opp. Parties
2026 Latest Caselaw 3370 Ori

Orissa High Court

Jitendra Kumar Dalai vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opp. Parties on 10 April, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                    W.P.(C) No.17762 of 2023

  In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India
                                   ..................

 Jitendra Kumar Dalai                        ....                    Petitioner

                                    -versus-

 State of Odisha & Ors.                      ....                  Opp. Parties


                For Petitioner         :      Mr. D. Sethi, Advocate

          For Opp. Parties :               Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC



PRESENT:

     THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Date of Hearing:10.04.2026 and Date of Judgment:10.04.2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Sethi, learned counsel for the

Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing

Counsel for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia

with the following prayer:-

"Under the circumstances, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon // 2 //

the Opp. party as to why the Order No. WORKS- CON-CASES-0211-2020 15917 dtd.30.12.2020 and order dtd.1¥.04,2023 passed by the Opp. party shall not be quashed and why the period from 30.12.2020 to the age of superannuation dtd.31.08.2023 be treated as service period of the petitioner.

And if the Opposite Party fails to show cause or show insufficient cause, make the saidRule absolute and quash Order No. WORKS-CON-CASES- 0211-2020 15917 dtd.30.12.2020 and order dtd. 17.04.2023 passed by the Opp. party and treat the period from 30.12.2020 to 31.08.2022 as service period of the petitioner with all promotional and financial benefits from 2016."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

petitioner was appointed as a Jr. Engineer where he

joined on 07.12.1982. Subsequently, while continuing

as such, post of Jr. Engineer being upgraded to the

post of Asst. Engineer, petitioner continued as an Asst.

Engineer w.e.f. 25.09.2013. Even though petitioner's

claim was considered for his promotion to the next

higher rank while continuing as an Asst. Engineer, but

because of the pendency of the 2(two) nos. of Vigilance

Proceedings against the petitioner in Cuttack Vigilance

P.S. Case No.27 of 1999 and 28 of 1999, petitioner's

claim was kept in a sealed cover, in the DPC held on

29.11.2016 under Annexure-2.

// 3 //

3.1. It is further contended that in the aforesaid

Vigilance Proceeding so initiated in Cuttack Vigilance

P.S. Case No.27 of 1999 and 28 of 1999, charge-sheet

was filed on 27.12.2001 in both the cases. However,

cognizance was taken on 25.02.2006 in Cuttack

Vigilance P.S. Case No.27 of 1999 and on 26.02.2002

in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.28 of 1999.

Similarly, charge was framed against the petitioner for

the offence U/s.13(2) r/w Section-13(1)(d) and Section-

7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under

Section-409 and 120-B of the IPC vide order dated

07.07.2012 and 11.01.2005 respectively in both the

vigilance proceedings.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

even though on the face of the initiation of the vigilance

proceeding in the year 1999 with cognizance being

taken in the year 2006 and 2002 respectively and

charge being framed in the year 2012 and 2005

respectively, petitioner was allowed to continue, but all

of sudden petitioner was given premature retirement in

// 4 //

terms of the provisions contained under Rule-71(a) of

the Orissa Service Code (In short "Code") vide the

impugned order dated 30.12.2020 under Annexure-6.

3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

since such order of premature retirement given vide the

impugned order under Annexure-6, is not in conformity

with the guideline issued by the Govt. in the G.A. and

P.G. Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-9, the

said order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

3.4. Placing reliance on the provisions contained

under Para-4 and 7 of the guideline dated 24.09.2019,

learned counsel for he petitioner contended that since

by the time petitioner was given such premature

retirement vide the impugned order dated 30.12.2020

under Annexure-6 basing on the decision taken by the

Review Committee in its proceeding dated 21.12.2020,

petitioner had already attained the age of 58 years, his

date of birth being 23.08.1962, no such decision could

have been taken by the Review Committee in its

proceeding dated 21.12.2020 so acted upon by the

// 5 //

Govt.-Opp. Party No.1 with issuance of the impugned

order dated 30.12.2020 under Annexure-6. Para-4 and

7 of the guideline dated 24.09.2019 available under

Annexure-9 reads as follows:-

"4. The cases of Group-A & Group-B Officers on their completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age, as the case may be, on the 31st March, 30th June, 30th September and the 31st December of a year shall be reviewed by the Review Committees constituted in pursuance of these instructions. Similarly the case of Group-C Officers and Group-D employees shall be reviewed on the 30th June and the 31st December of the year by the relevant Review Committee.

7. The cases of Govt. servants covered under paragraph-4 above should be reviewed six months before their completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age, as the case may be as per the following schedule Sl. Quarter in which Cases of Officer/Employee Dateline of furnishing No. review is to be completing 30 years of the report to the made qualifying service or G.A. & P.G. attaining 50 years of age Department and on their attaining 55 years of age``

1. January to March July to September of the same 15th April year

2. April to June October to December of the 15th July same year

3. July to September January to March of the next 15th October year

4. October to December April to June of the next year 15th January of the next year

A register of officers/employees who are completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age is to be maintained. The register should be scrutinized at the beginning of every quarter by a senior officer in the Department/ Office and the review undertaken according to the above schedule.

In addition to the above, the Secretary of the Administrative Department is also empowered to

// 6 //

constitute internal Committees to scrutinize all the cases required to be reviewed in each quarter and finalize the specific cases to be reviewed. These Internal Committees will ensure that the service record of the employees being reviewed, along with a summary bringing out alt relevant information, is submitted to the review committees at least one month before the due date of review.

The administrative Departments shall furnish reports of every review conducted quarterly in respect of their own offices as well as all the offices functioning under their administrative control to the G.A & P.G Department in the format prescribed in Annexure-VI."

3.5. In support of his aforesaid submission, reliance

was placed to the decision of this Court so passed in

W.P.(C) No.12438 of 2022 (Ratnakar Sethy Vs. State

of Odisha and Others). This Court in Para-6, 6.1, 6.2,

6.3 & 6.4 of the judgment has held as follows:-

"6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner entered into service as an Inspector of Civil Supplies on 07.10.1994. While so continuing, he was promoted to the post of Asst. Civil Supply Officer on 01.01.2007. Subsequently, Petitioner was also promoted to the post of Addl. Civil Supply Officer vide order dtd.31.05.2020. Even though Petitioner was implicated in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 dtd.24.05.2012, but as found from Annexure-12 series, he was not charge sheeted in the said proceeding. However, after his implication in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 dtd.03.02.2022, Petitioner's name was forwarded to the Review Committee to give him premature retirement in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code. Basing on the recommendation made by the Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.11.02.2022 under Annexure-11 series, Petitioner was given premature retirement vide the impugned order dt.15.03.2022 under Annexure-1.

// 7 //

6.1. Since it is not disputed that by the time Petitioner's claim was referred to the Review Committee, Petitioner had already attained the age of 50 years, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ratnakar Mallick as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that Petitioner's name could not have been recommended by the Review Committee, as the same is contrary to the guideline issued by the Govt. under Annexure-2. Not only that this Court is also of the view that there were no sufficient materials available before the Review Committee to recommend the Govt. to give premature retirement to the Petitioner.

6.2. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court while quashing order dt.15.03.2022 under Annexure-1, directs Opp. Party No. 1 to reinstate him by passing an appropriate order in that regard within a period of 2 (two) months hence.

6.3. Since it is not disputed that Petitioner after being given premature retirement has only been sanctioned with provisional pension, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to regularize the break period of service in accordance with law, but on notional basis. However, the benefit extended in shape of provisional pension shall not be refunded by the Petitioner.

6.4. However, quashing of the order under Annexure-1 will not debar Opp. Party No. 1 to proceed against the Petitioner in accordance with law, if he is involved in any manner detrimental to the interest of the Govt.. But before parting with this case, it is the view of this Court that instead of taking step to give premature retirement to an employee in terms of the provision contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code, the concerned employee should be dealt with initiation of appropriate proceeding as provided under OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. This Court is of such view as while giving premature retirement to an employee, he is becoming entitled to get all the post retiral benefits including pension, which is not in the better interest of the Govt. nor it is in public interest."

3.6. Reliance was placed to the decision of this Court

so passed in W.P.(C) No.20750 of 2022 (Manoj Kumar

// 8 //

Behera Vs. State of Odisha and Another). This Court

in Para-6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 & 6.4 of the judgment has held

as follows:-

"6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing in service, he was promoted to different rank vide different orders issued by the Department. It is also found that Petitioner's name was recommended for his selection to the State IAS Cadre from Non-State Civil Service Officer vide Annexure-3 series.

6.1. However, because of his implication in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 17 dtd.17.03.2022, Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dtd.08.04.2022 w.e.f.17.03.2022. Subsequently, when Petitioner's name was forwarded to the Review Committee, he was given premature retirement in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code. The Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.18.05.2022 under Annexure-B/1 when recommended the case of the Petitioner, the said recommendation was accepted by the Govt. with issuance of the impugned order dtd.10.08.2022 under Annexure11.

6.2. Since by the time Petitioner's name was recommended by the Review Committee, which is not disputed, Petitioner had already attained the age of 53 years, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ratnakar Mallick as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that Petitioner's name could not have been recommended. Since the provisions contained under the guideline issued under Annexure-10 has not been followed, it is the view of this Court that the recommendation as well as the impugned order stands vitiated. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.10.08.2022 so passed under Annexure-11. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to reinstate him by passing an appropriate order in that regard within a period of 2 (two) months hence.

6.3. Since it is not disputed that Petitioner after being given premature retirement has only been sanctioned with provisional pension, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to regularize the break period of service in

// 9 //

accordance with law, but on notional basis. However, the benefit extended in shape of provisional pension shall not be refunded by the Petitioner.

6.4. However, quashing of the order under Annexure-1 will not debar Opp. Party No. 1 to proceed against the Petitioner in accordance with law, if he is involved in any manner detrimental to the interest of the Govt.. But before parting with this case, it is the view of this Court that instead of taking step to give premature retirement to an employee in terms of the provision contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code, the concerned employee should be dealt with initiation of appropriate proceeding as provided under OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. This Court is of such view as while giving premature retirement to an employee, he is becoming entitled to get all the post retiral benefits including pension in terms of Rule 41 of OCS (Pension) Rules 1992, which is not in the better interest of the Govt. nor it is in public interest."

3.7. It is also contended that, petitioner claiming his

reinstatement in service with quashing of order dated

30.12.2020, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)

No.247 of 2021. During pendency of the said

proceeding, when petitioner was acquitted in both the

Vigilance Proceedings vide judgment dated 13.04.022

and 29.06.2022 under Annexure-13, this Court taking

into account such acquittal of the petitioner in both the

Vigilance cases, directed for consideration of his claim

for reinstatement vide order dated 07.07.2022.

3.8. It is also contended that, by the time this Court

disposed of the matter vide order dated 07.07.2022,

petitioner had not attained the age of superannuation,

// 10 //

which was due on 31.08.2022, his date of birth being

23.08.1962. It is however contended that on the face of

the acquittal of the petitioner in both the vigilance

proceedings, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of

reinstatement was never considered prior to his

retirement and the same was rejected only vide the

impugned order dated 17.04.2023 under Annexure-12.

Accordingly, order dated 30.12.2020 under Annexure-6

and order dated 17.04.2023 under Annexure-12 are

under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

3.9. It is contended that since petitioner was given

premature retirement vide the impugned order under

Annexure-6, contrary to the guideline issued under

Annexure-9, and on the face of his acquittal in both the

vigilance proceedings, which was the only

consideration before the Review Committee to

recommend his name for giving premature retirement,

pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in

W.P.(C) No.247 of 2021, petitioner should have been

reinstated prior to his attaining the age of

// 11 //

superannuation on 31.08.2022. But because of the

nature of impugned order passed under Annexure-12,

petitioner was deprived to get the benefit of

reinstatement and consequential release of the retiral

benefits as due and admissible.

3.10. It is further contended that since the

recommendation made by the Review Committee in its

proceeding dated 21.12.2020 so acted upon by the

Govt. with issuance of the impugned order dated

30.12.2020 under Annexure-6, was not in terms of the

guideline issued by the Govt. under Annexure-9, in

view of the decisions of this Court so cited (supra),

order of premature retirement issued under Annexure-

6, is not sustainable in the eye of law and also the

rejection vide the impugned order dated 17.04.2023

under Annexure-12.

3.11. It is accordingly contended that with quashing of

both the orders, let it be held that petitioner attained

the age of superannuation on 31.08.2022 in due course

// 12 //

while in service, with extension of all service and

financial benefits as due and admissible.

4. Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned Addl. Standing Counsel

on the other hand made his submission basing on the

stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp.

Party No.1. It is contended that since petitioner while

continuing in service, was implicated in 2 (two) nos. of

vigilance proceedings in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case

No.27 of 1999 and 28 of 1999, where cognizance was

taken on 07.07.2012 and 11.01.2005 respectively,

because of his implication in the vigilance cases,

petitioner's name was recommended to the Review

Committee to consider his case for giving premature

retirement under the provisions contained under Rule-

71(a) of the Code. The Review Committee taking into

account the implication of the petitioner in both the

vigilances cases, in its proceeding dated 21.12.2020,

when recommended to give premature retirement to the

petitioner, the same was acted upon by the Govt.-O.P.

// 13 //

No.1 with issuance of the order dated 30.12.2020

under Annexure-6.

4.1. It is also contended that even though this Court

while disposing W.P.(C) No.247 of 2021, directed for re-

consideration of the order of premature retirement

taking into account the acquittal of the petitioner vide

judgment dated 13.04.2022 and 29.06.2022 under

Annexure-13, but Opp. Party No.1 after due

appreciation of the materials, was pleased to reject the

petitioner's prayer for reinstatement vide the impugned

order dated 17.04.2023 under Annexure-12.

4.2. It is contended that since petitioner was involved

in 2(two) nos. of vigilance proceedings during his

incumbency as an Asst. Engineer and the Review

Committee recommend his case in the Proceeding

dated 21.12.2020, no illegality or irregularity can be

found with the impugned order initially issued on

30.12.2020 under Annexure-6. It is also contended

that because petitioner was involved in 2(two) nos. of

vigilance cases with charge being framed, even though

// 14 //

he was acquitted vide judgment dated 13.04.2022 and

29.06.2022, but that cannot be a ground to re-call the

original order passed on 30.12.2020. It is accordingly

contended that neither order under Annexure-6 nor

order under Annexure-12 requires interference of this

Court.

It is also contended that because of his premature

retirement, petitioner is eligible and entitled to get his

pensionary benefits as provided under Rule-41 of the

OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 and it no way causes

prejudice to the petitioner.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

considering the submission made, this Court finds that

petitioner entered into service as a Jr. Engineer where

he joined on 07.12.1982. The post of Jr. Engineer being

upgraded to the post of Asst. Engineer, petitioner

continued as an Asst. Engineer w.e.f. 25.09.2013.

5.1. In the DPC dated 29.11.2016 so available under

Annexure-2, petitioner's claim though was considered

for his promotion, but it was kept in a sealed cover,

// 15 //

because of the pendency of the Cuttack Vigilance P.S.

Case No.27 of 1999 and 28 of 1999.

5.2. The fact which is not disputed, in both the

vigilance proceedings, charge-sheet was filed with

taking of cognizance vide order dated 25.02.2006 and

26.02.2002. Charge was framed vide order dated

07.07.2012 and 11.01.2005 in both the proceedings for

the offence U/s.13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of the PC Act,

1988 and Section-409/120-B of the IPC.

5.3. However, as found in the year 2020 only

petitioner's name was recommended to the Review

Committee to take a decision in terms of the provisions

contained under Rule-71(a) of the Code. As found,

Review Committee recommended to give premature

retirement to the petitioner in the proceeding dated

21.12.2020 so produced by the learned Addl. Govt.

Advocate pursuant to order dated 20.01.2026.

5.4. It is not disputed that in order to give premature

retirement to any Govt. employee, the guidelines

prescribed by the Govt. in the G.A. and P.G.

// 16 //

department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-9, is

required to be followed. As provided under Para-4 and

7 of the said guideline, such a premature retirement

can be given to an employee on completing 30 years of

qualifying service or attaining the age of 50 years

and/or on attaining the age of 55 years as the case

may be, on the 31st March, 30th June, 30th September

and the 31st December of a year.

5.5. As further provided in Para-7 of the guideline,

where Govt. intends to give premature retirement to an

employee, it has to be reviewed six months before

completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining

50 years of age and/or attaining 55 years of age.

5.6. It is found from the record, petitioner's date of

birth being 23.08.1962, by the time Review Committee

recommended his name to give premature retirement

on 21.12.2020, petitioner had already attained the age

of 58 years. Placing reliance on the decisions so cited

(supra) of this Court, this Court is of the view that by

the time petitioner's case was considered by the Review

// 17 //

Committee, he had already attained the age of 58

years. Accordingly, in terms of the provisions contained

under Para-4 and 7 of the guideline dated 24.09.2019

under Annexure-9, it is the view of this Court that,

Petitioner's case could not have been recommended for

consideration under Rule-71(a) of the Code.

5.7. It is also found that subsequent to such

premature retirement given vide order dated

30.12.2020, when petitioner was acquitted in both the

proceedings vide judgment dated 13.04.2022 and

29.06.2022 under Annexure-13, this Court in W.P.(C)

No.247 of 2021, directed Opp. Party No.1 to take a

fresh decision with regard to reinstatement of the

petitioner vide order dated 07.07.2022.

5.8. The Writ Petition though was disposed of prior to

retirement of the petitioner on 07.07.2022 but no

decision was taken with regard to claim of the

petitioner to get the benefit of reinstatement prior to his

retirement on 31.08.2022. However, such claim of the

petitioner pursuant to the earlier order of this Court

// 18 //

was rejected vide the impugned order dated 17.04.2023

under Annexure-12.

5.9. In view of the aforesaid analysis and since the

guideline issued under Annexure-9 has not been

followed while giving premature retirement to the

petitioner and fact that petitioner has been acquitted in

both the vigilance proceedings, which was the only

consideration before the Review Committee while

recommending the case of the petitioner to give

premature retirement, this Court placing reliance on

the decisions so cited (supra), is of the view that order

of premature retirement passed under Annexure-6

dated 30.12.2020, so upheld vide order dated

17.04.2023 under Annexure-12 are not sustainable in

the eye of law.

5.10. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash both

the orders and while quashing orders dated 30.12.2020

under Annexure-6 and order dated 17.04.2023 under

Annexure-12, this Court held the petitioner to have

retired on attaining the age of superannuation on

// 19 //

31.08.2022 in due course. This Court accordingly while

holding so, directs Opp. Party No.1 to release all the

retiral benefits as due and admissible in favour of the

petitioner and also consider his claim to get the benefit

of promotion in terms of the DPC recommendation

dated 29.11.2016, if petitioner's claim as contended

was kept in a sealed cover. This Court directs Opp.

Party No.1 to complete the entire exercise within a

period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of this

order. However, the period from 30.12.2020 to

31.08.2022 be regularised on notional basis and

petitioner will not be entitled to get any financial

benefit.

5.11. Before parting with the case, this Court

deprecates the action of the State in giving premature

retirement taking recourse to the provision contained

under Rule-71(a) of the Code, instead of taking

appropriate action with due initiation of a departmental

proceeding. Not only that in the present case on the

face of the implication of the petitioner in two(2) nos. of

// 20 //

vigilance cases in the year 1999, petitioner was allowed

to continue till 2020, without initiation of any

departmental action and was given premature

retirement without following the guideline dated

24.09.2019.

6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 10th April, 2026/Basudev

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack