Premature retirement decisions must adhere to prescribed guidelines; non-compliance when an employee reaches a certain age renders the decision unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Ms. P. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Ms. S. Prusty, learned counsel and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.15.03.2022 so issued under Annexure-1. Vide the said order Petitioner was given premature retirement in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 71(a) of the Odisha Service Code (in short Code).

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner entered into service as an Inspector in the Civil Supplies Department on 07.10.1994. While so continuing, Petitioner was promoted to the post of Asst. Civil Supply Officer on 01.01.2007. It is further contended that while so continuing Petitioner though was implicated in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 dtd.24.05.2012, but in the said criminal case Petitioner was never charge sheeted so reflected in the communication dtd.16.11.2019 available under Annexure-12.

4.1. It is also contended that Petitioner while so continuing in his service, he was promoted to the post of Addl. Civil Supply Officer vide order dtd.21.05.2022. But subsequently, Petitioner when was implicated in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 dtd.03.02.2022, Petitioner’s case was referred to the Review Committee for giving him premature retirement in terms of the provsions contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code. The Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.11.02.2022 under Annexure-11 series recommended the Govt.- Opp. Party No. 1 to give premature retirement to the Petitioner, which was acted upon by the Govt. with issuance of the impugned order dtd.15.03.2022 under Annexure-1.

4.2. It is the main contention of the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that by the time Petitioner’s case was referred to the Review Committee, since he had already attained the age of 50 years, in terms of the guideline issued by the Govt. on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-2, Petitioner’s claim could not have been considered by the Review Committee with the recommendation made under Annexure-11 series and issuance of the impugned order in giving premature retirement to the Petitioner vide the impugned order under Annexure-1.

4.3. In support of his aforesaid submission, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court so passed on 28.10.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 14146 of 2022 (Ratnakar Mallick Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.). This Court in Para 3.13 and 6.3 has held as follows:-

“3.13. It is contended that since by the time petitioner’s name was referred vide letter dated 10.11.2021 and the Review Committee recommended to give Premature Retirement to petitioner in its Proceeding dated 15.03.2022 under Annexure-11, petitioner had already crossed the age of 50 years, his case could not have been taken up by the Review Committee with such recommendation. It is contended that once a thing has been prescribed to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in that manner or not at all. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions:

1. Bernard Francis Joseph Vs. Government of Karnataka.

2. Independent Sugar Corporation Limited Vs. Girish Sriram Jeneja

3.Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.

xxx xxx xxx

6.3. It is also found that by the time the Review Committee took the decision in recommending Premature Retirement to the petitioner on 15.03.2022 under Annexure-11, petitioner since had completed the age of 50 years, in view of the provisions contained under Para-4 read with Para-7 of the Resolution dated 24.09.2019 under Annexure-10, petitioner’s case could not have been t