[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Himadri Sekhar Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Another ....... Opp. ... on 4 February, 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 32290 of 2025
(An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
Himadri Sekhar Mohanty ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & another ....... Opp. Parties
For the Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Mukherjee,
Senior Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 28.01.2026 : Date of Judgment: 04.02.2026
S.S. Mishra, J. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the
Petitioner, calling in question the legality and propriety of the
decision communicated to him vide District Court Letter No. 5208
dated 01.08.2025, whereby his claim for release of retiral and
pensionary benefits has been rejected on the cryptic and unreasoned
ground of "no merit".
2. Mr. Goutam Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the petitioner and Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, learned Additional
Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties, have been heard
in extenso.
3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the
petitioner, Himadri Sekhar Mohanty, was initially appointed as a
Junior Clerk under the Office of the District Judge, Balasore, vide
Order No. 143 dated 04.07.1986 and was posted as Leave Reserve
Clerk in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Balasore. Subsequently, the said
recruitment process was declared irregular and, as a consequence
thereof, the services of all appointees of the said batch, including the
petitioner, were terminated vide Order No. 350 dated 23.10.1987. One
of the retrenched employees, namely Chittaranjan Mohapatra,
assailed the termination before this Court in O.J.C. No. 7468 of 1992,
which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15.11.1993,
directing the District Judge, Balasore to consider his case in the light
Page 2 of 15
of the policy decision of the Government as contained in G.A.
Department Notification No. 9197/GA-2R/1-1/91 dated 30.03.1991.
4. Pursuant thereto, and taking note of the hardship faced by
retrenched employees who had rendered more than one year of
service, the Government formulated a policy providing for the re-
incorporation of such employees on provisional basis, subject to their
clearing recruitment examinations in two consecutive chances
whenever conducted next. In terms of the said policy and following
representations made by similarly situated retrenched employees, the
petitioner was reinstated vide Order No. 94 dated 28.04.1995 issued
by the Office of the District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, and was posted
in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-
S.D.J.M., Nilgiri.
5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no recruitment
examination was conducted in the Balasore Judgeship for nearly nine
to ten years thereafter, and by the time such examinations were
eventually held, the petitioner had crossed the maximum age limit
prescribed for the post. It is asserted that no age relaxation was
provided to persons like the petitioner, who had been reinstated
Page 3 of 15
pursuant to retrenchment, rendering it practically impossible for them
to fulfil the condition imposed under the Government Notification of
1991.
6. The record further discloses that the petitioner appeared in and
passed the departmental examination held on 09.09.1995, qualifying
himself for promotion, which was duly notified vide Order No. 255
dated 20.10.1995. Over the years, the petitioner was promoted to
higher posts, including promotion to Senior Clerk (Junior Branch)
vide Order No. 443 dated 17.05.2011. Upon bifurcation of the
Balasore-Bhadrak Judgeship, the petitioner was absorbed in the
Balasore Judgeship vide Order No. 449 dated 18.05.2011 and was
posted as Bench Clerk Grade-III.
7. The petitioner further underwent Accounts Training at
Madhusudan Das Regional Academy of Financial Management,
Bhubaneswar, in July 2014 and successfully obtained certification.
His service record was periodically reviewed by duly constituted
Review Committees. On attaining the age of 50 years, the petitioner
was reviewed on 18.10.2014 and was allowed to continue in service.
Subsequently, on 21.02.2017, he was promoted to the post of Head
Page 4 of 15
Clerk / Bench Clerk Grade-II and posted under the establishment of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore. On attaining the age of 55
years, the petitioner was again reviewed on 09.08.2019 and was
allowed to continue in service till superannuation.
8. Significantly, vide Order No. 155 dated 06.05.2020, the
petitioner was substantively appointed and confirmed in the post of
Senior Clerk. Thereafter, on recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee, he was promoted to Bench Clerk Grade-I vide
Order No. 666 dated 27.12.2021 and posted accordingly. Ultimately,
the petitioner retired from service on superannuation with effect from
30.09.2023
pursuant to Order No. 566 dated 04.09.2023 and was
formally relieved vide Order No. 05 dated 30.09.2023.
9. The grievance of the petitioner arises from the fact that despite
rendering continuous service for several decades, having been
periodically promoted, reviewed, and ultimately confirmed in service,
he was denied pensionary and other retiral benefits on the ground that
his initial provisional appointment was never regularized owing to
alleged non-fulfilment of the condition relating to clearing
recruitment examinations. Representations dated 09.04.2024,
07.05.2024, and 29.10.2024 seeking release of General Provident
Fund, earned leave encashment, Group Insurance refund, provisional
pension, commutation, and DCRG remained unanswered or were
rejected. Ultimately, vide Letter No. 5208 dated 01.08.2025, the
petitioner's claim was rejected by a communication citing "no merit",
giving rise to the present writ petition.
10. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
contended that the impugned rejection order is arbitrary, non-
speaking, and suffers from complete non-application of mind. It was
argued that once the petitioner had been reinstated, absorbed,
periodically promoted, reviewed by statutory Review Committees,
and finally substantively confirmed in service, the State and judicial
authorities in the administrative side are estopped from treating his
service as irregular at the stage of retirement. It was further contended
that the condition of clearing recruitment examinations, as contained
in the 1991 Government Notification, became impossible of
compliance due to non-conduct of examinations for several years and
absence of age relaxation, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be
penalised for impossibility of performance.
11. The learned counsel placed heavy reliance upon the judgment
of this Court dated 06.05.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7874 of 2023
(Laxmikanta Dhal v. State of Odisha & Others), wherein a similarly
situated employee, appointed under the same order dated 28.04.1995
and subjected to identical situations, was held entitled to full
pensionary benefits. It was urged that denial of similar benefits to the
petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was also placed on Rule
11 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, to submit that the petitioner's
service fulfilled all statutory conditions for qualifying service. Further
reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Gujarat v. Talsibai Dhanjibai Patel & Ors. (decided on
18.02.2022), to contend that the State cannot take advantage of its
own wrong after extracting decades of service from an employee.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties,
relying upon the counter affidavit sworn by the Registrar, Civil
Courts, Balasore, submitted that the petitioner's provisional
appointment was expressly subject to the condition of clearing
recruitment examinations in two consecutive chances, which he
admittedly failed to do. It was contended that in view of the order
passed in O.J.C. No. 7468 of 1992 and the Government Notification
dated 30.03.1991, the petitioner's service never stood regularised, and
therefore, he is not entitled to pensionary benefits.
13. It was further submitted that although the case of the petitioner
appears factually similar to that of Laxmikanta Dhal, the judgment
dated 06.05.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 7874 of 2023 is person-specific and
cannot be automatically extended to the petitioner. The opposite
parties sought to justify the rejection of the petitioner's claim on the
ground that judicial directions issued in favour of one employee do
not extend to the benefit of others unless specifically directed. It was
lastly contended that the writ petition is devoid of merit and that the
petitioner, having failed to comply with the conditions of provisional
appointment, cannot seek pensionary benefits as a matter of right.
14. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and upon
a careful scrutiny of the pleadings and documents brought on record,
the core issue that arises for consideration is whether the Opposite
Party Authorities were justified in denying pensionary and other
retiral benefits to the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to
clear recruitment examinations in two consecutive chances,
notwithstanding the undisputed facts that the petitioner had rendered
continuous service for decades, had been periodically promoted, had
withstood statutory reviews, and had ultimately been substantively
appointed and confirmed in service prior to his superannuation.
15. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was reinstated pursuant to
the policy decision of the Government as contained in G.A.
Department Notification No. 9197 dated 30.03.1991, which
contemplated provisional appointment of retrenched employees
subject to certain conditions, including appearing in recruitment
examinations. It is equally not in dispute that after such reinstatement,
the petitioner continued in uninterrupted service for nearly three
decades, during which period he was promoted from time to time,
entrusted with higher responsibilities, subjected to Review Committee
assessments at the ages of 50 and 55 years, and was finally allowed to
continue in service till his superannuation. Significantly, vide Order
No. 155 dated 06.05.2020, the petitioner was substantively appointed
and confirmed in service, and such order admittedly remained
operative and was never recalled, rescinded, or declared void at any
point of time.
16. The principal ground urged by the Opposite Parties to deny
pensionary benefits is the alleged failure of the petitioner to clear
recruitment examinations in two consecutive chances. However, this
Court finds that such reasoning stands squarely answered by the
judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7874 of 2023 (Laxmikanta
Dhal v. State of Odisha & Others), where the Court, dealing with an
identically situated employee appointed under the same order dated
28.04.1995 and governed by the very same Government Notification
of 1991, held that denial of pensionary benefits on such ground was
unsustainable. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is
extracted herein below:-
"8.1 It is further apparent from Annexure-6 that,
the Petitioner was confirmed in service vide
Order No.157 dated 19th October, 2019 (w.e.f.
21st May, 2011) (Annexure-6 series) and such
order has never been recalled/revoked. It was
alive till the date of superannuation of the
Petitioner. It also appears from the record that,
the service of the Petitioner was reviewed twice,
i.e., once at the age of 50 and another at the age
of 55 years, and the Petitioner was allowed to
continue in service till superannuation. Thus,
there was no impediment on the part of the
Authority to grant pensionary benefit to the
Petitioner. As such, we find no justification in
denying pensionary benefits to the Petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order under
Annexure-8 being not sustainable stands quashed
and learned District Judge, Bhadrak is directed
to extend all pensionary benefits to the Petitioner
with effect from the date of his superannuation.
Arrear pensionary benefits shall be calculated
and paid to the Petitioner including the current
pension as expeditiously as possible preferably
within a period of three months from the date of
production of certified copy of this Order. The
Petitioner shall co-operate with the Authority for
sanction and payment of the pensionary
benefits."
17. As in the case of Laxmikanta Dhal, the present petitioner has
specifically pleaded, and the opposite parties have failed to effectively
controvert facts on record, that recruitment examinations were not
conducted for several years after his reinstatement and that when such
examinations were eventually held, the petitioner had crossed the
prescribed age limit and no relaxation was extended to him. The
counter affidavit merely contains an assertion that recruitment
examinations were conducted regularly, but conspicuously fails to
disclose particulars as to dates, notifications, or any material to
demonstrate that the petitioner was afforded a realistic and legally
tenable opportunity to comply with the condition imposed under the
1991 Notification. This Court finds such evasive pleadings wholly
insufficient, particularly when denial of pensionary benefits, a
valuable statutory right, is sought to be justified.
18. Further, it is evident from the service records that the petitioner
was never, at any point during his long tenure, informed or cautioned
that his continuation in service was precarious or that failure to clear
recruitment examinations would disentitle him from pensionary
benefits. On the contrary, the authorities themselves treated the
petitioner as a regular member of the establishment by promoting
him, confirming him in service, and allowing him to discharge
sensitive judicial administrative functions. Once the employer itself
has, by conscious and repeated acts, treated the service of the
petitioner as regular and pensionable, it is not open to the authorities
to turn around at the time of retirement and resurrect an alleged
irregularity of decades past to deny retiral dues.
19. This Court is unable to accept the contention of the Opposite
Parties that the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 7874 of 2023 is confined
only to Laxmikanta Dhal and cannot be extended to the petitioner. It
is a settled principle of law that once a Court declares the law
applicable to a particular set of facts, the benefit thereof ought to be
extended to all similarly situated persons, without compelling each
individual to approach the Court separately. The petitioner stands on
identical footing with Laxmikanta Dhal in all material particulars,
same batch, same reinstatement order, same conditions, same nature
of service, and same ground of denial. To deny the petitioner similar
relief would amount to hostile discrimination and would offend
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
20. This Court also finds considerable force in the submission that
the Opposite Party Authorities cannot be permitted to take advantage
of their own wrong. Having failed to conduct recruitment
examinations within a reasonable period, having failed to grant age
relaxation, and having continued to utilise the services of the
petitioner for decades, the authorities cannot now penalise him for
non-compliance with a condition which had become impossible of
performance. Such a course of action is manifestly arbitrary,
unreasonable, and contrary to the welfare obligations of the State, as
repeatedly emphasised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
21. In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the impugned Letter No. 5208 dated 01.08.2025 issued
by the Office of the District Judge, Balasore (Annexure-1 to the Writ
Petition) rejecting the petitioner's claim for retiral benefits on the
ground of "no merit" is unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The same
suffers from non-application of mind, ignores binding precedent, and
results in grave injustice to an employee who has rendered the prime
of his life in service of the judicial institution. The Opposite Parties
are directed to extend all pensionary and retiral benefits to the
petitioner, as admissible, treating the petitioner's service as qualifying
service for the purpose of pension, within a period of three months
hence. The opposite party no.2 shall process the pension papers to be
submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month and forward
the same to the concerned authority under the State Government so as
to complete the entire process within a period of three months.
22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
I agree
(M.R. Pathak)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 4th February, 2026/
Subhashis Mohanty
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
