[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Anther vs Sabita Patel And Others on 22 April, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 3425 of 2024
State of Odisha and anther .... Appellants
Mr. Umesh Chandra Behura, AGA
-versus-
Sabita Patel and Others .... Respondents
Mr. Amiya Kumar Chhatoi, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 22.04.2026
01. W.A. No. 3425 of 2024 & I.A. No. 8816 of 2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. First Respondent-employee's W.P.(C) No.19341 of
2022 came to be allowed by a learned Single Judge vide
order dated 05.08.2022 granting him the benefit of O.C.S.
(Pension) Rules 1992 and GPF (O) Rules, 1938. Paragraphs
16 & 17 of the order read as under:
"16. Be that as it may, in view of the admitted position
with regard to the selection of the Petitioner with
publication of the select list under Annexure-2 on
07.01.2000 and the vacancies available in respect of
General (male candidate as reflected under Annexure-1
and the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the
aforementioned case, the Petitioner's claim for his
inclusion under the provisions of OCS (Pension) Rules,
1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938 needs favourable
consideration.
17. Accordingly, this Court while allowing the prayer
made in the writ Petition directs the Opp. Parties to
extend the benefit of coverage under OCS (Pension),
Rules, 1992 and the GPF(O) Rules, 1938 in favour of the
Petitioner. It is further directed that the Opp. Parties shall
complete the entire exercise within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of this order."
3. State and its functionaries have preferred this Intra-
Court Appeal against the above order specifically taking
up a contention that under Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 3 of the
Pension Rules, the question of granting of pensionary
benefit would arise only on the candidates being
appointed under the Government. This aspect having
been lost sight of by the learned Single Judge, learned
AGA submits, interference of this Court is eminently
warranted. Learned counsel representing the first
Respondent-employee resists the Intra-Court Appeal
making submission in justification of the impugned order
and the reasoning at Paragraphs 16 & 17, culled out
above, on which it has been constructed.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence
in the matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the
learned Single Judge specifically at Paragraphs 16 & 17
thereof. To the same, we add that under the extant
Recruitment Rules, the Select List will be valid ordinarily
for a period of one year. Pursuant to the Advertisement of
1995, the Select List was prepared on 07.01.2000 and sent
to the Government for operation. However, Government
slept over the same for a period of seven years. No
plausible explanation is forthcoming for keeping the same
in limbo for such a long period, especially when the
validity of Select Lists of the kind, itself is one year.
5. Ours being a model and welfare State as ordained
by the Constitution of India, the authorities howsoever
high they may be, have to act in accordance with law. No
plausible explanation is offered as to why for seven long
years, the appointment orders were not issued to these
poor candidates. Granting relief to the Appellants herein
would virtually amount to placing premium on their
complacency of the officers to say the least. It hardly
needs to be stated that for the fault of officials, a citizen
cannot be punished. This inarticulate premise animates
the impugned order.
6. The above apart, the present Appeal has been filed
after brooking a long delay of 837 days. Application in
I.A. No.8815 of 2024 supported by an affidavit
accompanies the appeal memo seeking its condonation. A
perusal of the same does not generate confidence in its
version. Almost identical sentences appear in other cases,
which we have decided against the Government and
therefore, there is nothing that lures the Court to take a
different view. We repeat, the explanation far from being
plausible, is frugal and mechanical. Therefore, application
for condonation of delay is also rejected.
In the above circumstances, this Appeal is liable to
be dismissed and accordingly it is costs having been made
easy.
Impugned order of the learned Single Judge shall be
implemented in its letter & spirit within an outer limit of
three months without giving scope of contempt action.
Web copy of order to be acted upon by all
concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
AKPradhan/Priyanka
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
