Pensionary benefits cannot be denied based on conditions rendered impossible due to governmental inaction; continuous service and promotions warrant recognition of entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner, calling in question the legality and propriety of the decision communicated to him vide District Court Letter No. 5208 dated 01.08.2025, whereby his claim for release of retiral and pensionary benefits has been rejected on the cryptic and unreasoned ground of “no merit”.

2. Mr. Goutam Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties, have been heard in extenso.

3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner, Himadri Sekhar Mohanty, was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk under the Office of the District Judge, Balasore, vide Order No. 143 dated 04.07.1986 and was posted as Leave Reserve Clerk in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Balasore. Subsequently, the said recruitment process was declared irregular and, as a consequence thereof, the services of all appointees of the said batch, including the petitioner, were terminated vide Order No. 350 dated 23.10.1987. One of the retrenched employees, namely Chittaranjan Mohapatra, assailed the termination before this Court in O.J.C. No. 7468 of 1992, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15.11.1993, directing the District Judge, Balasore to consider his case in the light of the policy decision of the Government as contained in G.A. Department Notification No. 9197/GA-2R/1-1/91 dated 30.03.1991.

4. Pursuant thereto, and taking note of the hardship faced by retrenched employees who had rendered more than one year of service, the Government formulated a policy providing for the re- incorporation of such employees on provisional basis, subject to their clearing recruitment examinations in two consecutive chances whenever conducted next. In terms of the said policy and following representations made by similarly situated retrenched employees, the petitioner was reinstated vide Order No. 94 dated 28.04.1995 issued by the Office of the District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak, and was posted in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-S.D.J.M., Nilgiri.

5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no recruitment examination was conducted in the Balasore Judgeship for nearly nine to ten years thereafter, and by the time such examinations were eventually held, the petitioner had crossed the maximum age limit prescribed for the post. It is asserted that no age relaxation was provided to persons like the petitioner, who had been reinstated pursuant to retrenchment, rendering it practically impossible for them to fulfil the condition imposed under the Government Notification of 1991.

6. The record further discloses that the petitioner appeared in and passed the departmental examination held on 09.09.1995, qualifying himself for promotion, which was duly notified vide Order No. 255 dated 20.10.1995. Over the years, the petitioner was promoted to higher posts, including promotion to Senior Clerk (Junior Branch) vide Order No. 443 dated 17.05.2011. Upon bifurcation of the Balasore-Bhadrak Judgeship, the petitioner was absorbed in the Balasore Judgeship vide Order No. 449 dated 18.05.2011 and was posted as Bench Clerk Grade-III.

7. The petitioner further underwent Accounts Training at Madhusudan Das Regional Academy of Financial Management, Bhubaneswar, in July 2014 and successfully obtained certification. His service record was periodically reviewed by duly constituted Review Committees. On attaining the age of 50 years,