[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Subasini Dei vs State Of Odisha & Others on 24 February, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.787 of 2024
Subasini Dei .... Appellant
Mr. U. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Respondents
Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 24.02.2026
04. A retired employee has presented this Intra-Court Appeal
for laying a challenge the learned Single Judge's order dated
30.01.2024 whereby her W.P.(C) No.6660 of 2023 has been
negatived. In the said WP, she had challenged BEO's order dated
13.02.2023, operative portion of which reads as under:-
"Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and on a meticulous scrutiny of the
material documents and records it is found that the
petitioner was remained absent from her duty from
4.10.2015 till she submitted her joining report as
Headmistress of Mahatapala, UP (ME) School,
Ranpur Block on 19.6.2017. As such the grievance as
has been made by the petitioner in her representation
dtd.15.10.2018 to review/recall the order
dtd.29.8.2018 is devoid of any merit and merits no
consideration hence the representation
dtd.15.10.2018 as under Annexure-7 is rejected being
devoid of any merit."
2. Learned counsel vehemently submits that the Orissa
Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2888(C)/2015 disposed off
on 21.03.2017, had directed the BEO to regularize her absence
from duty and therefore, the increments that would otherwise fall
due on account of addition of this part of service to the whole,
could not have been denied. In support of this view, he presses
into service Rule 77 of the Orissa Service Code, which arguably
says that unless withheld in a due process, increments accruing
due during the course of service have to be accorded to the
employee. Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents
resists the Appeal making submissions in justification of the
impugned order and the reasons on which it has been
constructed. He draws attention of the Court to the BEO's order
at Annexure-6, which mentions about sanctioning of leave, half
pay leave & extra ordinary leave without pay so that Appellant is
denied pensionary benefits for want of qualifying service.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter
for the following reasons:
3.1. The Appellant was absent from duty during the period
between 02.08.2015 to 18.06.2017. The Tribunal, in the earlier
round of litigation, vide order dated 21.03.2017, had given relief
to the Petitioner on humanitarian ground as under:
" In view of such submission, we direct the respondent
No.4 to regularize the service of the applicant for the
period she remained absent as per rule, expeditiously
so that she will not face any difficulty to get her
retiral dues."
The above relief was granted to the Appellant, as already
said, purely on humanitarian ground even after recording a
specific finding as to her unauthorized absence for the period
mentioned above. But for the concession given by the
Tribunal, Appellant would not have been entitled to grant of
pensionary benefits, on account of lack of qualifying service.
It is admitted before us that she has been drawing pension on
regular basis. Therefore, what has been notionally treated as
service despite unauthorized absence, cannot be basis for
earning increments. In such circumstance, Rule 77 of the
Code, which operates in normal circumstances entitling the
employee to the benefit accrued increments, is not
invokable.
3.2. Learned Single Judge has rightly reproduced the
observation of Tribunal to the effect that but for the
regularization of break in service on account of unauthorized
absence, Appellant could not get the pensionary benefits. It
had not set at naught the finding as to her unauthorized
absence during the period between 04.10.2015 and
18.06.2017. What has been done in the mercy jurisdiction
cannot be abuse by the beneficiary of such order, as rightly
contended by learned AGA appearing for the official
Respondents. He is right in drawing our attention to the
document at Annexure-6, wherein the Block Education
Officer has given the following particulars of leave, half pay
leave & extraordinary leave without pay that have been
sanctioned to the Appellant because of order of Tribunal:
Sl Kind of Leave Period of Leave Remarks
No. Sanctioned
From To Total
1 Earned leave 02/08/2015 03/10/2015 63 days On
on full pay medical
ground
04/10/2015 29/11/2015 57 days On private
affairs
2 Half Pay 30/11/2015 06/02/2017 435 On private
Leave days affairs
3 Extra ordinary 07/02/2017 18/06/2017 132 On
Leave without Private
pay affairs
days
Appellant should be happy with the benefits which she has
received despite not being entitled to.
In the above circumstances, the Appeal being devoid
of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs
having been made easy.
Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Bijay/Sarbani
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 26-Feb-2026 11:17:34
