Premature retirement recommendations must adhere to age limit guidelines; deviations lead to invalidation. Appropriate procedures under OCS (CCA) Rules should be followed for misconduct cases.

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.11.08.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order Petitioner was given premature retirement in terms of the Rule 71(a) of the Orissa Service Code (in short Code).

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner joined as a Building SI in the Police Department vide order dtd.16.02.1998 under Annexure- 1. Subsequently, Petitioner joined as an Asst. Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Water Resources on 01.06.2004 as reflected in Annexure-1.

4.1. It is contended that Petitioner while so continuing, was promoted to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer vide order dtd.26.03.2014. Petitioner thereafter was promoted to the rank of Executive Engineer vide order dtd.30.09.2019 and he was also recommended for selection to the State IAS Cadre from Non-State Civil Service Officers vide recommendation made and available under Annexure-3 series.

4.2. It is contended that on the face of such extension of the benefit of promotion as well as the recommendation in favour of the Petitioner for selection to the State IAS Cadre and promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer vide order dtd.06.08.2021, Petitioner when was implicated in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 17 dtd.17.03.2022, his name was forwarded to the Review Committee for giving premature retirement in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code and the guideline issued by the G.A. & P.G. Department dt.24.09.2019 under Annexure-10. Basing on the recommendation of the Review Committee in its proceeding held on 18.05.2022 under Annexure-B/1, Petitioner was issued with the order of premature retirement vide order dtd.10.08.2022 under Annexure-11.

4.3. It is the main contention of the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that since by the time Petitioner’s name was recommended to the Review Committee, he had already attained the age of 53 years, in view of the guideline governing the premature retirement of Govt. employees so issued by the G.A. Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-10, Petitioner’s claim could not have been forwarded, with the recommendation made by the Review Committee under Annexure-B/1 and consequential issuance of the impugned order dt.10.08.2022 under Annexure-11. In support of his aforesaid submission, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court 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 of the Judgment 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 Retire