[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Suresh Chandra vs State Of Odisha And on 4 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.36914 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.1434 of 2018 &
W.P.(C) No.32757 of 2020
Suresh Chandra .... Petitioner
Satapathy Mr. B. Mohanty,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. K.C. Kanungo,
Advocate for (O.P. No.3 In
W.P.(C) No.36914 of 2021,
Opp. Party No.2 in W.P.(C)
No.1434 of 2018)
Mr. R. Sahoo, Advocate for
(O.P. No.2 in W.P.(C)
No.36914 of 2021, O.P.
No.3 in W.P.(C) No.1434 of
2018 & W.P.(C) No.32757
of 2020)
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Order ORDER
No 04.02.2026
11. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Since the present batch of Writ Petitions involve
similar issue, all were heard analogously and disposed of
by the present common order.
// 2 //
3. Heard learned counsels appearing for the Parties.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that since petitioners
were made to retire at the age of 58 years, even though
they were otherwise eligible to continue till attaining the
age of 58 years, in view of the decision of this Court in the
case of Premalata Panda Vs. State of Odisha and
Another, disposed of on 14.07.2015 in W.P.(C) No.9279 of
2015, petitioners are eligible and entitled to get not only
arrear salary but also all other service benefits. This Court
in Para-16 of the said judgment has held as follows:-
"16. Keeping in view the law laid down by the apex Court in
Dayanand Chakrawarty (supra), this Court is of the opinion
that the following consequential and pecuniary benefits
should be allowed to different sets of CDA employees
including the petitioner who were ordered to retire at the
age of 58 years and this Court so directs.
(a) The employees, who moved the Court of law
irrespective of the fact whether interim order was passed in
their favour or not, shall be entitled to full salary up to the
age of 60 years and arrear salary shall be paid to them
after adjusting the amount, if any, paid.
(b) The employees, who never moved before any Court of
law and had retired on attaining the age of superannuation,
shall not be entitled for arrears of salary. However, they will
be deemed to be continuing in service up to the age of 60
years. In their case, the CDA shall treat their age of
superannuation as 60 years, fix the pay accordingly and re-
fix the retirement benefits like pension, gratuity etc. On such
calculation, they shall be entitled to arrears of retirement
benefits after adjusting the amount already paid.
(c) Needless to say that the arrears of salary and arrears
of retirement benefits should be paid to such employees
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy
of the judgment.
(d) So far as the petitioner is concerned, since she had
approached this Court before completion of 58 years of age
and during pendency of the writ petition, she was made to
retire on attaining the age of 58 years, this Court directs the
opposite party no.2 to bring her back into service forthwith
// 3 //
and allow her to continue till she attains the age of 60 years
and grant all the consequential service and financial
benefits as due and admissible to her in accordance with
law."
4.1. It is contended that prior to retirement of the
petitioners, petitioners were before this Court in different
Writ Petitions and during pendency of the Writ Petitions,
since petitioners were made to retire on their attaining the
age of 58 years in view of the decision in the case of
Premalata Panda, they are eligible and entitled to get the
arrear salary as well as other service benefits as due and
admissible.
4.2. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction
be issued to the Opp. Party-Corporation to pay the arrear
salary and other service benefits in terms of the said
judgment.
5. Mr. K.C. Kanungo, learned counsel and Mr. R.
Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation in
all these cases, on the other hand contended that
judgment passed in the case of Premalata Panda cannot
be made applicable to the employees of the Corporation as
the said decision was with regard to the employees
working under CDA and service condition of the present
employees is different to the service condition of the
employees working under CDA.
5.1. It is accordingly contended that similar benefit
cannot be extended by following the decision in the case of
Premalata Panda.
// 4 //
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that
petitioners prior to attained the age of 58 years, was
before this Court in different Writ Petitions. It is not
disputed that age of retirement of the employees working
under the Corporation was extended to 60 years basing on
the decision taken by the Govt. in the year 2014.
6.1. Since petitioners were before this Court prior to their
retirement, this Court is of the view that decision rendered
in the case of Premalata Panda, is applicable to the facts
of the petitioners' claim. It is also the view of this Court
that the judgment in the case of Premalata Panda, is a
judgment in rem and not a judgment in personam.
6.2. By applying that ratio, this Court directs Opp. Party-
Corporation to release the arrear salary for the period
involved along with all service and financial benefits as
due and admissible. This Court directs Opp. Party-
Corporation to comply the direction within a period of 3
(three) months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. All the Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Signature
Basudev
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 10-Feb-2026 11:26:10
