Back
2026 Supreme(Ori) 345
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
Rangadhar Satapathy – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Odisha And Another – Respondents
W.P.(C ) No.22629 of 2024
Decided On : 05-03-2026
For the Petitioner: Ms. S. Biswal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr.R. Roy, Adv.
Eligibility for pension requires continuous service without breaks and appointment to a regular post, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate.
Headnote:(A) Odisha Pension Rules - Re-engagement - Service entitlement - The rejection of the Petitioner's claim for re-engagement, pension, and pensionary benefits was upheld, as no evidence showed engagement in regular posts or continuous service post retrenchment on 24.04.1970. (Paras 6 and 6.1)
(B) Administrative Decision - Lawfulness of action - The Court affirmed that the petitioner's claims, based on previous short engagements with breaks and lack of regular appointment, were insufficient for entitlement to pensionary benefits and that the decisions taken by the authorities were justified. (Paras 5.2 and 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed re-engagement and pension benefits after being retrenched in 1970, despite years of advocacy and requests made to multiple authorities and prior court orders directing consideration of claims.
Findings of Court:
The court found the petitioner's engagement did not satisfy the criteria for eligibility for pension based on breaks and absence of regular appointment, leading to a lawful rejection of claims.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was eligible for re-engagement and pensionary benefits after retrenchment in 1970.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the lack of continuous service and absence of regular engagement precluded the claim for pensionary benefits, affirming the authorities' justified rejection of the same.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim for re-engagement and benefits. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. opposition's arguments against petitioner's eligibility. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's evaluation of service duration and eligibility. (Para 6) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appe aring for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.18.07.2024 so passed by Opp. party No.2 under Annexure-10. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of re-engagement and consequential sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits, was rejected.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner continued as a Peon in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4 for the period from 14.11.1964 to 26.01.1968. Thereafter, Petitioner was allowed to continue as a Peon in the Office of Opp. Party No.3 for the period from 29.08.1968 to 08.10.1968 and as a Chainman in the Office of Collector, Ganjam-Opp. Party No.4 for the period from 27.06.1969 to 24.04.1970. But however w.e.f 24.04.1970, Petitioner was illegally retrenched from services and his prayer for re-engagement was never considered.
4.1. It is further contended that vide letter dt.17.10.1988 under Annexure-2 series, Opp. party No.4 though was requested to consider re-engagement of the Petitioner along with 2(two) other similarly situated employees, but such request was never considered and implemented by allowing the Petitioner the benefit of re- engagement. Not only that Opp. party No.3 vide letter dt.05.02.1996 and 19.12.1997, though requested the Collector-Opp. Party No.4 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s grievance, but no action was taken in ventilating the grievance of the Petitioner for his re-engagement.
4.2. It is contended that Petitioner challenging such inaction of Opp. party No.4 though approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.330 of 2003, but the said matter after being transferred to this Court was disposed of vide order dt.02.12.2021 under Annexure-3 with a liberty to approach the appropriate authority, if any cause of action still survives. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 02.12.2021 under Annexure-3, Petitioner when made a grievance on 28.01.2022, the same was rejected by Opp. Party No.4 vide order dt.21.03.2022 under Annexure-4. After such rejection of his claim, Petitioner moved Opp. Party No.3 or his re- engagement by making a detailed representation on 10.04.2023 under Annexure-5.
4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner further contended that similarly situated employees when were extended with the benefit by this Court vide order under Annexure-8 series, Petitioner claiming similar benefit, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C ) No.37082 of 2023. This Court vide order dt.21.11.2023 under Anneuxre-9 when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim, without proper appreciation, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dt.18.07.2024 under Annexure-10.
4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order contended that since after his retrenchment w.e.f 24.04.1970, on the face of repeated request, Opp. party No.4 never considered his grievance in re-engaging him and accordingly, Petitioner was deprived to continue in service, Petitioner became eligible and entitled to get the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits. But on the face of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C ) No.37082 of 2023, claim of the Petitioner was rejected. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order requires interference of this Court and with a direction on the Opp. Party Nos.3 & 4 to extend the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits in favour of the Petitioner.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the materials available on record, as no counter affidavit has been filed, on the face of the
