[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Amiya Kumar Routray vs State Of Odisha And on 17 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9215 of 2022
Amiya Kumar Routray .... Petitioner
Mr. M. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 17.03.2026
09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging order dated 29.01.2021, so passed by the
Govt.-Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-11. Vide the
said order, claim of the petitioner in allowing him to
exercise his option in terms of the provisions contained
under Rule-34 of OCS(Pension) Rules, 1977 and/or
Rule-30 of OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
petitioner joined in service under the State on
// 2 //
05.05.1982. But since his past service rendered in the
Indian Army was not taken into account for calculation
of his retiral benefits, he made several representations
before the authority. As the same was not considered,
petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.17210 of 2019. This Court vide order dated
21.11.2019, when directed for consideration of the
petitioner's claim, the same without proper
appreciation was rejected vide the impugned order
dated 29.01.2021 under Annexure-11 on the ground
that since petitioner has not exercised the option in
terms of Rule-34 of the OCS(Pension) Rules, he is not
eligible to get the benefit of last service.
4.1. It is contended that since petitioner was having no
knowledge about the stipulation contained under Rule-
34 of the 1977 Rules and/or Rule-30 of OCS(Pension)
Rules 1992, no fault can be found with the petitioner
for not exercising such option. It is accordingly
contended that the ground on which petitioner's claim
has been rejected vide the impugned order, is not
sustainable in the eye of law and liable for interference.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other
hand while supporting the impugned order, contended
that after his joining under the State on 05.05.1982,
petitioner was required to submit the required options
within a period of 3 (three) months in terms of the
// 3 //
provisions contained under Rule-34 of the
OCS(Pension) Rules, 1977, which was in force.
5.1. It is contended that such an application when was
submitted to the Sainik Board on 22.03.1988, the
same was rejected by the department-Opp. Party No.1
on 17.06.1994. It is contended that such rejection of
the petitioner's claim was never assailed and instead
petitioner made further representations with a prayer
to allow him to exercise the option.
5.2. However, pursuant to the order passed by this
Court in W.P.(C) No.17210 of 2019, such claim of the
petitioner on due consideration, was rejected as
petitioner never submitted his option either in terms of
the provisions contained under Rule-34 of the 1977
Rules or in terms of the provisions contained under
Rule-30 of the 1992 Rules.
5.3. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or
irregularity can be found with the impugned order.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that
petitioner being a retired Army person, he joined in
service under the State on 05.05.1982. As found, in
order to get the benefit of counting his past service
rendered in Indian Army, he was required to exercise
an option within a period of 3 (three) months from the
// 4 //
date of his joining in terms of the provisions contained
under Rule-34 of the 1977 Rules. As found from the
impugned order, such an option was only made on
22.03.1988 and the same was rejected on 17.06.1994.
6.1. Such rejection of the petitioner's claim was never
assailed and instead petitioner went on making further
representations with a prayer to allow him to exercise
the option. As the same was not considered, petitioner
again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17210
of 2019. This Court vide order dated 21.11.2019, when
directed for consideration of the petitioner's claim, the
same has been rejected vide the impugned order dated
29.01.2021 under Annexure-11.
6.2. This Court after going through the materials
available on record, found that petitioner joined under
the State Govt on 05.05.1982. As per the provisions
contained under Rule-34 of the OCS(Pension) Rules,
1977, he was required to exercise the option to get the
benefit of his past service within a period of 3 (three)
months of his joining.
6.3. However, no such option was exercised within the
stipulated time and such an option exercised on
22.03.1988, was rejected by the Govt.-Opp. Party No.1
on 17.06.1994. Such rejection of his claim was never
assailed by the petitioner. Since admittedly petitioner
has not exercised the option within the statutory period
// 5 //
as provided under Rule-34 of the Rules, this Court is of
the view that no illegality or irregularity has been
committed in rejecting his claim vide the impugned
order dated 29.01.2021 under Annexure-11.
7. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the impugned order and dismiss the Writ Petition.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
