[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Charulata Mallick vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 20 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.21434 of 2022
Charulata Mallick .... Petitioner
Mr. N. Rath, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
COROM:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No 20.02.2026
3. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging order dt.16.03.2022 passed by Government-
Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-5. Vide the said order,
Petitioner was given pre-mature retirement in terms of the
provisions contained under Rule-71(a) of the Orissa Service
Code (In short, "The Code").
4. While assailing the impugned order of pre-mature
retirement, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that such an order was passed completely in
violation of the instruction issued by the Government in the
G.A & P.G, Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-8.
4.1. It is contended that as per the said guideline,
more particularly, as provided under Para-4 of the
// 2 //
Guideline, no such case can be taken up if an employee has
already attained the age of 50 and/or 55 years as on 31 st
March, 30th June,30th September and 31st December of a
year. Para-4 of the guideline 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 cases 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.
4.2. It is also contended that as provided under Para-5 of
the Guidelines, the composition of the Review Committee is
prescribed. It is also contended that cases of all such
Government servants can be referred to the Review
Committee, prior to six months of their attaining the age of
50 years and/or 55 years so provided under para-7 of the
said Guideline. But in the instant case, neither case of the
Petitioner was referred in terms of Para-4 of the guideline,
nor provisions contained in Para-7 was followed, as by the
time, Petitioner was given pre-mature retirement, he had
already attained the age of 52 years, his date of birth being
04.07.1970. It is also contended that the Review
Committee, basing on whose recommendation, Petitioner
was given pre-mature retirement was never constituted in
terms of Para-5 of the guideline.
// 3 //
4.2. In support of his submission that Petitioner's case
could not have been recommended on his attaining the age
of 50 years, reliance was placed to the decisions of this
Court passed in the case of Ratnakar Mallick Vs. State
of Odisha and Others, W.P.(C ) No.14146 of 2022 as well
as in the case of Hrudananda Behera Vs. Chairman,
OPTCL, Bhoinagar and Another, W.P.(C ) No.7446 of
2021.
4.3. In the case of Ratnakar Mallick, this Court in para
6.3. has held as follows:
6.3. It is also found that by the time the
Review Committee took the decision in
recommending Premature Retirement to the
petitioner on 15.03.2022 under Annexure-11,
petitioner since had completed the age of 50
years, in view of the provisions contained
under Para-4 read with Para-7 of the
Resolution dated 24.09.2019 under Annexure-
10, petitioner's case could not have been
taken up by the Review Committee. Placing
reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court as cited supra in the case of Bernard
Francis Joseph, Girish Sriram Juneja and
Checkmate Service P. Ltd., it is the view of
this Court that case of the petitioner could not
have been taken up by the Review Committee.
4.4. In the case of Hrudananda Behera, this Court in
para-6.6. has held as follows:
6.6. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that by
the time the Review Committee took up the issue,
Petitioner sirice had already attained 53 years,
such review could have been taken up on his
attaining the age of 55 year by the time the Review
Committee took the Since decision in its
proceeding dt. 12.02.2020 under Annexure-H/2.
Petitioner had already attained the age of 53
// 4 //
years, his case could not have been taken up by
the Review Committee with the recommendation
made.
4.5. Not only that, placing reliance on the counter affidavit
so filed by Opp. party Nos.3 & 4, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner contended that Opp. parties in para-11 of
the counter affidavit have clearly admitted that no such
formal Review Committee was formed to review the case of
the Petitioner. Stand taken in para-11 of the counter
affidavit reads as follows:
That, in this case, though a formal Review
Committee could not be formed for reviewing
her case as per General Administration &
Public Grievances Department Notification
No.27037 dated 24.09.2019 (to conduct reviews
or issue orders retiring an employee
prematurely as provided in the proviso to
Clause (a) of Rule 71 of the Odisha Service
Code, on completion of 30 years of qualifying
service or the employee attaining 50 years of
age), yet her service and performance was
reviewed by the then Branch Officer of the
concerned Establishment Section of the
Department, the Director, ST and the Principal
Secretary of the Department and after due
examination of all material facts and relevant
records, it was felt that continuation of the
Petitioner in Government Service is not in
public interest and accordingly. further steps
were taken for premature retirement of the
Petitioner on the ground of doubtful integrity.
Thus, on unanimous decision taken by the
senior most officers of the Department, Hon'ble
Cabinet Minister, ST & SC Development,
Minorities and Backward Classes Welfare
Department and Hon'ble Chief Minister,
Odisha, the Petitioner was given premature
retirement vide ST & SC Development,
Minorities and Backward Classes Welfare
Department Order No.4630/SSD, dated
16.03.2022 allowing the Petitioner 3 months'
// 5 //
pay and allowances in lieu of the 3 months'
prior notice in accordance with proviso to
Clause (a) of Rule-71 of the Odisha Service
Code.
4.6. Making all these submissions, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner contended that since provisions
contained under Para-4,5,7 & 8 of the guideline
dt.24.09.2019 was never followed and no such Review
Committee was constituted to examine the case of the
Petitioner, the order of pre-mature retirement given to the
Petitioner vide the impugned order dt.16.03.2022 under
Anneuxre-5 is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to
be set aside by this Court.
5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on
the other hand relying on the self-same para-11 of the
counter affidavit, contended that even though no such
Review Committee in terms of para-5 of the guidelines
dt.24.09.2019 was constituted, but taking into account the
allegations available against the Petitioner, her case was
reviewed by the then Branch Officer of the concerned
Establishment Section of the Department, Director, ST &
Principal Secretary of Department. Basing on the report of
the said Committee, Petitioner was given pre-mature
retirement vide the impugned order under Anenxure-5. It
is contended that since Petitioner's claim was reviewed by
the Committee, though not in terms of para-5 of the
guideline, no illegality or irregularity can be found with
such action of the Opp. parties.
5.1. It is also contended that taking into account the
materials available against the Petitioner, the Review
// 6 //
Committee rightly took a decision to give pre-mature
retirement to the Petitioner.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and considering the submission made, this Court
finds that Petitioner while in service, she was given pre-
mature retirement as per the provision contained under
Rule- 71(a) of the Code vide the impugned order
dt.16.03.2022 under Annexure-5.
6.1. This Court finds that by the time Petitioner's case was
reviewed with issuance of the impugned order, she had
already crossed the age of 50 years. Placing reliance on the
decisions of this Court in the case of Ratnakar Mallick as
well as Hrudananda Behera, this Court is of the view that
case of the Petitioner could not have been taken up by the
Review Committee at all with the recommendation and
consequential passing of impugned order.
6.2. Not only that, placing reliance on the stand taken in
para-11 of the counter affidavit, since case of the
petitioner was never placed before a Review Committee
constituted in terms of Para-5 of the guideline, it is also the
view of this Court that basing on the recommendation of an
illegal Review Committee so constituted, Petitioner could
not have been given pre-mature retirement.
6.3. Since provisions contained under Para-4,5,7 &8 of the
instruction dt.24.09.2019 under Annexure-8 has not been
followed and by the time Petitioner's claim was
recommended, she had already crossed the age of 50 years,
this Court placing reliance on the decision in the case of
// 7 //
Ratnakar Mallick and Hrudananda Behera and the
admitted violation of the provisions contained in the
guideline dt.24.09.2019, is inclined to quash order
dt.16.03.2022 so passed by Opp. party No.1 under
Annexure-5.
6.4. While quashing the said order, this Court directs
Opp. party No.2 to re-instate the Petitioner in her service
with passing of an appropriate order within a period of
4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The
break period of service be regularized on notional basis.
7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:07:20
