Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Suresh Chandra Satapathy – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of writ petition and prayers made. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contention regarding retirement age and salary arrears. (Para 3) |
| 3. opposing arguments by the corporation regarding retirement age. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's analysis of legality of retirement and claims. (Para 5) |
| 5. final order and directions from the court. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:
It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
(i) Admit the writ petition;
(ii) Call for the records,
(iii) Issue RULE NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the letter/order bearing Ref No. 2596/OSBC/4068 dated 28.12.2020 passed by the opposite party no-2 under Annexure-14 shall not be quashed;
(iv) If the Opposite parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions thereby quashing the letter/order bearing Ref No. 2596/OSBC/4068 dated 28.12.2020 passed by the opposite party no-2 under Annexure-14.
(v) Issue a wri
Employees retained on deputation are entitled to salary arrears through the age of 60, per government retirement policies, even if premature retirement occurred.
The court upheld the retirement age of 60 for employees of a public sector undertaking, declaring attempts to roll back this age unauthorized without Cabinet approval.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees of the Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage Board, being governed by the rules and regulations applicable to State Government employees,....
Disciplinary proceedings cannot continue after an employee's retirement in absence of explicit provisions allowing such continuation in service rules.
A statutory corporation cannot withhold the post-retirement benefits of its retired employees without providing them with an opportunity of hearing.
The court ruled that an enhancement of retirement age can only apply to future retirees and cannot be retroactively claimed by individuals who have already retired under the previous rules.
Employees of autonomous bodies like the DRDA cannot claim parity with state government employees regarding retirement benefits unless explicitly provided by law or policy, and changes in retirement a....
The petitioner has been compulsorily retired in the year 2010 on completion of 30 years of service as per Regulation 19 of Regulation 1961 which was prevailing at relevant time together with the dire....
whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall n....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
