[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Prativa Mohapatra vs Utkal University on 25 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.23393 of 2025
Prativa Mohapatra ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Sanjib Mohanty
-versus-
Utkal University, Bhubaneswar ..... Opposite Parties
& Ors.
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Tarananda
Pattanayak (for O.P.
Nos.1 & 2)
Sasmita Nayak, A.S.C.
for the State-O.P.
Nos.3 & 4
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
25.03.2026
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Shri Sanjib Mohanty, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Shri Tarananda Pattanayak, learned counsel appearing
for the Utkal University-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and Smt.
Sasmita Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-
Opposite Parties No.3 and 4.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to:
i) Admit the writ application.
ii) Call for the record.
iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ / writs, order / orders, direction/directions
directing the opposite parties to grant pension and
other retiral benefits as due and admissible to the
petitioner within a stipulated period by country the
entire service period of the petitioner as qualifying
service by disposing the representation of the
petitioner vide Annexure-6 dt.26.6.2025 of the writ
petition.
iv) And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/
directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper for the ends of justice."
4. The facts, relevant only to decide the present application, are
that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Utkal
University on 01.03.1987 on consolidated wage basis. The
petitioner's service was ultimately regularized as per order dated
08.09.2023 w.e.f. 25.07.2023. On attaining the age of
superannuation, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service
on 31.05.2025. Despite rendering more than 30 years of continuous
service, the petitioner was not paid pension on the ground that her
case would be considered under the new contributory pension
scheme dated 13.07.2006 of the Finance Department.
5. According to the petitioner, she, having been appointed in
the year 1987, should be governed under the provisions of the
Odisha Pension Rules, 1977 and her qualifying service ought to
have been counted by taking her entire past service into account.
Moreover, for the fault of the opposite party-authorities, the
petitioner should not be made to suffer inasmuch as despite
repeated orders passed by this Court in different writ applications
as also the Supreme Court, the authorities took as long as 38 years
to regularize the services of the petitioner. Under such
circumstances, the petitioner cannot be deprived of her legitimate
right to pension under the Odisha Pension Rules.
6. The stand of the University is that the matter of pension was
referred to the Government, as petitioner's emoluments were being
paid from out of the grant sanctioned by the Government.
Accordingly, on 10.10.2012, the Government in the Department of
Higher Education, while concurring with the proposal for
regularization of the services of 15 (fifteen) employees, including
the petitioner, observed that necessary payment of salary and other
allowances shall be made to the said employees by the University
from its own resources without any financial burden on
Government in future. It was further stipulated that the salary/other
dues shall not be part of annual block grant sanctioned by the
Government.
7. During the year 2024, the Registrar of the University
allowed the salary and other allowances to the petitioner may be
paid from the University's own resources without any financial
burden on the Government.
8. From the foregoing narrations and the stand taken by the
Government, this Court finds that there is nothing left for
adjudication in the writ application inasmuch as admittedly, the
petitioner was appointed way back in the year 1987, but her
services were regularized on the basis of the order dated
10.10.2012 of the Government. Basing on the Government order,
the University passed an order on 08.09.2023 specifically
mentioning therein that the services of the petitioner are
regularized as Junior Assistant with effect from 01.03.1987 in the
prevalent scale of pay.
9. In view of the specific order quoted above, the petitioner
must be deemed to have been a regular employee of the University
from 01.03.1987. To such extent therefore, she would be entitled to
pension as per the rules applicable to such employees, namely, the
Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992. Such being the case,
the University obviously cannot take a stand that the financial
resources towards salary and other allowances, including pension,
are to be provided by the Government. In fact, the Government has
made it clear that the University can meet these expenses from its
own resources. Since this is a case concerning a regular employee
of the University, she cannot obviously be deprived of her
legitimate pensionary dues by the University on the ground that her
salary and other emoluments are dependent on the grant sanctioned
by the Government from time to time. It is needless to mention that
once she becomes a regular employee, it is for the University to
meet the expenses towards her salary and other allowances.
10. It is a matter of concern that the petitioner, after rendering
more than three decades of regular service to the University, retired
on superannuation on 31.05.2025 without being granted pension
and pensionary benefits. More than 1(one) year has passed in the
meantime and yet she is deprived of her legitimate dues towards
pension and pensionary benefits. It is well settled that pension, not
being a gratis, cannot be withheld without any justified reason.
11. This Court, after going through the materials available on
record and in particular, the communications between the
University authorities and the Government, finds no justified
reason for the University to have deprived the petitioner from her
pension and pensionary benefits.
12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ application is
allowed. The University authorities are directed to pass necessary
orders to sanction and disburse the pension and other pensionary
benefits in favour of the petitioner, as per the provisions of the
Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992, without any further
delay and in any case, not later than one month from the date of
production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 31-Mar-2026 10:59:50
