[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Ors vs Pradip Kumar Sahu & Ors on 21 April, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1629 of 2024
State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Appellants
Mr. S.K. Jee, Advocate
<<<<
-versus-
Pradip Kumar Sahu & Ors. .... Respondents
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Patra, Panel Counsel
For Respondent-3
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No. ORDER
21.04.2026
01. This Intra-Court Appeal by the State seeks to lay a
challenge to a learned Single Judge's order dated 05.09.2023
whereby Respondent-employees' W.P.(C) No.28909 of 2023
having been favoured, relief has been accorded in terms of Para-6
thereof as under:
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
careful examination of the background facts of the
present case and keeping in view the well settled
position of law that once an employee who was
working initially as MMR, thereafter brought over to
Work Charged establishment and finally, his service
was regularized shall be considered for payment of
pensionary benefit by taking into consideration as
how much period of service rendered in Work
charged and NMR establishment, calculate the
minimum qualifying period of service for grant of
pensionary benefit. Such a proposition of law as has
been propounded by this Court has already been
accepted by many judgments of this Court. Keeping in
view the aforesaid legal position, this Court deems it
proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the
Opposite Parties to calculate the minimum qualifying
service period of the Petitioner taking the shortfall
period from the service period of the Petitioner as
work Charged employee/NMR to calculate the
minimum qualifying service period, the benefit which
is due and admissible to the Petitioner on the basis of
his last pay drawn accordingly, the same be
sanctioned and disbursed to the Petitioner within a
period of two months from the date of communication
of the certified copy of this order. In the event, the
Petitioner though is getting any other pensionary
benefit, the same shall be surrendered before the
Government. Any decision taken be communicated to
the Petitioner within ten days of taking such
decision."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submits
and we agree that the subject matter of this appeal is substantially
similar to the one in Writ Appeal No.1598 of 2024 between State
of Orissa & Ors. vs. Basanti Das disposed off by us on
02.02.2026 wherein Paragraphs 12, 13, 14 & 15 read as under:
"12. An employee who has rendered long and
continuous service under a work-charged
establishment in terms of the governing resolutions
cannot be placed at a disadvantage merely because
the employer failed to take timely administrative
steps. The State, having framed policies for
amelioration of service conditions of such employees,
is under a corresponding obligation to implement
them meaningfully, and failure to do so cannot be
permitted to prejudice post-retiral security. Such
limited notional intervention neither disturbs the
service hierarchy nor confers collateral service
benefits such as back wages or seniority. The relief is
confined strictly to pensionary benefits, which are in
the nature of deferred compensation and social
security, and which courts have consistently treated
not as a matter of discretion, but as a right flowing
from the applicable service framework.
13. It goes without saying that pension being a
measure of post-retiral social security, the State
cannot be permitted to frustrate its own executive
decisions by inaction. Once eligibility under the
governing instructions is established, the
consequential pensionary benefits must follow. Such a
direction represents a measured application of settled
law to prevent manifest injustice and to ensure that
policy decisions are not rendered illusory by
administrative inertia.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court too, has recently
affirmed the same position in Bhola Nath Vs. State of
Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 99, reiterating that pension,
being a facet of social security and a constitutional
guarantee against arbitrariness, cannot be denied on
technical or procedural grounds when substantive
eligibility stands established.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present
case clearly falls within the category of cases where
long and continuous service under the work-charged
establishment, coupled with employer inaction despite
enabling policy decisions, warrants limited notional
intervention to effectuate pensionary entitlement."
3. In the above circumstances, there is nothing more to be
adjudicated in the matter and accordingly in terms of Basanti Das
(supra), this Appeal is also disposed off. The benefits shall be
extended to the Respondents-employees within an outer limit of
eight weeks, failing which delay may entail levy of ₹500/- per day
and after payment of the same to the Respondent, it is to be
recovered from the erring officials of the Department.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
AK Pradhan/Priyanka
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 22-Apr-2026 17:42:52
