Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 594

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
Pratap Kumar Samal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Another - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.9554 OF 2022
Decided On : 28-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. B. Routray, Senior Advocate along with Mr. P.K. Behera, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : M/s. S. Das, ASC Mr. N.K. Mishra, Sr. Adv.

Premature retirement of a government employee must adhere to mandated procedures, requiring review prior to age limits and consideration of service record, highlighting the need for clear evidence against the employee post-promotion.

Headnote:(A) Orissa Service Code - Rule 71 - Government Instruction dated 24.09.2019 - Premature retirement of employee - Challenging pre-mature retirement on basis of guidelines not followed regarding review before age limit and promotion consideration - Review Committee acted on conduct prior to promotion without evidence of misconduct post-promotion, leading to legal ineffectiveness of order. (Paras 3.1, 6.1, 6.6)

(B) Service Law - Principles of natural justice - Premature retirement seen as potential punitive action lacking due process, undermining the need for thorough disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 5.9, 6.6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was prematurely retired despite attaining 53 years of age and alleged misconduct related to a Vigilance case, which was ongoing at the time. Additionally, prior to retirement, the petitioner had an unblemished service record and was promoted in 2007. (Paras 3.5, 3.9, 6.1)

Findings of Court:
The court found the pre-mature retirement order flawed due to procedural disregard and a lack of definitive evidence against the petitioner post-promotion. The court quashed the order and allowed the petitioner to remain under suspension, permitting subsequent appropriate action by the Corporation. (Paras 6.6, 6.9)

Issues: Whether the Review Committee followed the mandated procedures in determining premature retirement, particularly in neglecting the requisite guidelines regarding age and promotion considerations. (Paras 6.1, 6.2)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that any action regarding premature retirement must adhere to specified protocols, underscoring the necessity for clear evidence of misconduct and proper process to uphold employee rights. (Paras 6.7)

Result: The impugned order of pre-mature retirement was quashed. The petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to remain under suspension while allowing for lawful actions by the Corporation.

Table of Content
1. introduction and background of the case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background detailing petitioner's service history and promotion. (Para 3)
3. opponent's argument regarding integrity and efficiency issues. (Para 4)
4. petitioner's response regarding premature retirement process. (Para 5)
5. court's final analysis and ruling on the case. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd. 18.11.2021 so issued under Annexure-3 and with a further direction on the Opp. Party-Corporation to re-instate the Petitioner in his services with all consequential service and financial benefits.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was appointed as an ad-hoc Junior Engineer in the establishment of Opp. Party No.2 vide order dt. 12.04.1988 under Annexure-1. In terms of the said order, Petitioner joined as an ad-hoc Jr. Engineer on 14.04.1988 and while so continuing, he was regularized in the cadre of Jr. Engineer/Asst. Project Manager vide order dt. 23.09.1991.

3.1. It is contended that after being so regularized, Petitioner was deputed to IDCO vide order dtd. 23.09.1991 and subsequently brought back to the Corporation vide Order dt. 11.07.1994. Petitioner accordingly once again rendered his duty in the Corporation w.e.f 12.07.1994.

3.2. It is contended that Petitioner while so continuing, vide order dt. 19.06.2007 under Annexure-2 was promoted to the rank of Dy. Manager. However, while so continuing, Petitioner vide the impugned Office Order dt. 18.11.2021 under Annexure-3 was given pre-mature retirement, relying on the provision contained under clause (a) of Rule 71 of the ORISSA SERVICE CODE (in short, “the Code”). Petitioner was so given pre-mature retirement w.e.f 18.11.2021 vide the impugned order under Annexure-3, by allowing him 3 (three) months’ pay and allowance in lieu of 3(three) months’ notice.

3.3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that vide its resolution dt. 24.09.2019 under Annexure-4, Government in the G.A and P.G. Department prescribed the guideline for pre-mature retirement of Government servants and to weed out Officers and employees of doubtful integrity or inefficiency from public service to ensure efficiency in administration.

3.4. It is contended that as provided under pargraphs-4 & 7 of the guideline dt. 24.09.2019, a Group-B and Group-D Officer on completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on attaining 55 years of age, as the case may be, on the 31^st March, 30^th June, 30^th September and 31^st December of a year shall be reviewed by the Review Committee, constituted in pursuance of the Instructions, is to take a decision as to whether an employee can be given pre-mature retirement. It is further contended that as provided under Para-7 of the Guideline, cases of Government servants covered under Para-4, should be reviewed 6 (six) months before their completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age, as the case may be, as per the time schedule enclosed thereto. Para 4 & 7 of the guideline reads as follows:

4. The cases of Group-A & Group-B Officers on their completing 30 years qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age the case may be, on the 31 March, 30th June, 30th September and the 31 December a year shall be reviewed by the Review Committees constituted in pursuance of the instructions. Similarly, the cases of Group-C Officers and Group-D employees shall be reviewed on the 30th June and the 31st December of the year by the relevant Review Committee.

xxx xxx xxx

7. The cases of Govt. servants covered under paragraph-4 above should be reviewed six months before their completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age, as the case may be as per the following tim