Himadri Sekhar Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Another

S.S. Mishra, J

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, the petitioner was reviewed on 18.10.2014 and was allowed to continue in service. Subsequently, on 21.02.2017, he was promoted to the post of Head Clerk / Bench Clerk Grade-II and posted under the establishment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore. On attaining the age of 55 years, the petitioner was again reviewed on 09.08.2019 and was allowed to continue in service till superannuation.

Significantly, vide Order No. 155 dated 06.05.2020, the petitioner was substantively appointed and confirmed in the post of Senior Clerk. Thereafter, on recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, he was promoted to Bench Clerk Grade-I vide Order No. 666 dated 27.12.2021 and posted accordingly. Ultimately, the petitioner retired from service on superannuation with effect from 30.09.2023 pursuant to Order No. 566 dated 04.09.2023 and was formally relieved vide Order No. 05 dated 30.09.2023.

The grievance of the petitioner arises from the fact that despite rendering continuous service for several decades, having been periodically promoted, reviewed, and ultimately confirmed in service, he was denied pensionary and other retiral benefits on the ground that his initial provisional appointment was never regularized owing to alleged non-fulfilment of the condition relating to clearing recruitment examinations. Representations dated 09.04.2024, 07.05.2024, and 29.10.2024 seeking release of General Provident Fund, earned leave encashment, Group Insurance refund, provisional pension, commutation, and DCRG remained unanswered or were rejected. Ultimately, vide Letter No. 5208 dated 01.08.2025, the petitioner’s claim was rejected by a communication citing “no merit”, giving rise to the present writ petition.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned rejection order is arbitrary, non-speaking, and suffers from complete non-application of mind. It was argued that once the petitioner had been reinstated, absorbed, periodically promoted, reviewed by statutory Review Committees, and finally substantively confirmed in service, the State and judicial authorities in the administrative side are estopped from treating his service as irregular at the stage of retirement. It was further contended that the condition of clearing recruitment examinations, as contained in the 1991 Government Notification, became impossible of compliance due to non-conduct of examinations for several years and absence of age relaxation, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalised for impossibility of performance.

The learned counsel placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of this Court dated 06.05.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7874 of 2023 (Laxmikanta Dhal v. State of Odisha & Others), wherein a similarly situated employee, appointed under the same order dated 28.04.1995 and subjected to identical situations, was held entitled to full pensionary benefits. It was urged that denial of similar benefits to the petitioner amounts to hostile discrimination and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was also placed on Rule 11 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, to submit that the petitioner’s service fulfilled all statutory conditions for qualifying service. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Talsibai Dhanjibai Patel & Ors. (decided on 18.02.2022), to contend that the State cannot take advantage of its own wrong after extracting decades of service from an employee.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, relying upon the counter affidavit sworn by the Registrar, Civil Courts, Balasore, submitted that the petitioner’s provisional appointment was expressly subject to the condition of clearing recruitment examinations in two consecutive chances, which he admittedly failed to do. It was contended that in view of the order passed in O.J.C. No. 7468 of 1992 and the Government Notification dated 30.03.1991, the petitioner’s service never stood regularised, and therefore, he is not entitled to pensionary benefits.

It was further submitted that although the case of the petitioner appears factually similar to that of Laxmikanta Dhal, the judgment dated 06.05.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 7874 of 2023 is person-specific and cannot be automatically extended to the petitioner. The opposite parties sought to justify the rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the ground that judicial directions issued in favour of one employee do not extend to the benefit of others unless specifically directed. It was lastly contended that the writ petition is devoid of merit and that the petitioner, having failed to comply with the conditions of provisional appointment, cannot seek pensionary benefits as a matter of right.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and upon a careful scrutiny of the pleadings and documents brought on record, the core issue that arises for consideration is whether the Opposite Party Authorities were justified in denying pensionary and other retiral benefits to the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to clear recruitment examinations in two consecutive chances, notwithstanding the undisputed facts that the petitioner had rendered continuous service for decades, had been periodically promoted, had withstood statutory reviews, and had ultimately been substantively appointed and confirmed in service prior to his superannuation.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was reinstated pursuant to the policy decision of the Government as contained in G.A. Department Notification No. 9197 dated 30.03.1991, which contemplated provisional appointment of retrenched employees subject to certain conditions, including appearing in recruitment examinations. It is equally not in dispute that after such reinstatement, the petitioner continued in uninterrupted service for nearly three decades, during which period he was promoted from time to time, entrusted with higher responsibilities, subjected to Review Committee assessments at the ages of 50 and 55 years, and was finally allowed to continue in service till his superannuation. Significantly, vide Order No. 155 dated 06.05.2020, the petitioner was substantively appointed and confirmed in service, and such order admittedly remained operative and was never recalled, rescinded, or declared void at any point of time.

The principal ground urged by the Opposite Parties to deny pensionary benefits is the alleged failure of the petitioner to clear recruitment examinations in two consecutive chances. However, this Court finds that such reasoning stands squarely answered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7874 of 2023 (Laxmikanta Dhal v. State of Odisha & Others), where the Court, dealing with an identically situated employee appointed under the same order dated 28.04.1995 and governed by the very same Government Notification of 1991, held that denial of pensionary benefits on such ground was unsustainable. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below:-

“8.1 It is further apparent from Annexure-6 that, the Petitioner was confirmed in service vide Order No.157 dated 19th October, 2019 (w.e.f. 21st May, 2011) (Annexure-6 series) and such order has never been recalled/revoked. It was alive till the date of superannuation of the Petitioner. It also appears from the record that, the service of the Petitioner was reviewed twice, i.e., once at the age of 50 and another at the age of 55 years, and the Petitioner was allowed to continue in service till superannuation. Thus, there was no impediment on the part of the Authority to grant pensionary benefit to the Petitioner. As such, we find no justification in denying pensionary benefits to the Petitioner.

Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-8 being not sustainable stands quashed and learned District Judge, Bhadrak is directed to extend all pensionary benefits to the Petitioner with effect from the date of his superannuation. Arrear pensionary benefits shall be calculated and paid to the Petitioner including the current pension as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this Order. The Petitioner shall co-operate with the Authority for sanction and payment of the pensionary benefits.”

As in the case of Laxmikanta Dhal, the present petitioner has specifically pleaded, and the opposite parties have failed to effectively controvert facts on record, that recruitment examinations were not conducted for several years after his reinstatement and that when such examinations were eventually held, the petitioner had crossed the prescribed age limit and no relaxation was extended to him. The counter affidavit merely contains an assertion that recruitment examinations were conducted regularly, but conspicuously fails to disclose particulars as to dates, notifications, or any material to demonstrate that the petitioner was afforded a realistic and legally tenable opportunity to comply with the condition imposed under the 1991 Notification. This Court finds such evasive pleadings wholly insufficient, particularly when denial of pensionary benefits, a valuable statutory right, is sought to be justified.

Further, it is evident from the service records that the petitioner was never, at any point during his long tenure, informed or cautioned that his continuation in service was precarious or that failure to clear recruitment examinations would disentitle him from pensionary benefits. On the contrary, the authorities themselves treated the petitioner as a regular member of the establishment by promoting him, confirming him in service, and allowing him to discharge sensitive judicial administrative functions. Once the employer itself has, by conscious and repeated acts, treated the service of the petitioner as regular and pensionable, it is not open to the authorities to turn around at the time of retirement and resurrect an alleged irregularity of decades past to deny retiral dues.

This Court is unable to accept the contention of the Opposite Parties that the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 7874 of 2023 is confined only to Laxmikanta Dhal and cannot be extended to the petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that once a Court declares the law applicable to a particular set of facts, the benefit thereof ought to be extended to all similarly situated persons, without compelling each individual to approach the Court separately. The petitioner stands on identical footing with Laxmikanta Dhal in all material particulars, same batch, same reinstatement order, same conditions, same nature of service, and same ground of denial. To deny the petitioner similar relief would amount to hostile discrimination and would offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

This Court also finds considerable force in the submission that the Opposite Party Authorities cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. Having failed to conduct recruitment examinations within a reasonable period, having failed to grant age relaxation, and having continued to utilise the services of the petitioner for decades, the authorities cannot now penalise him for non-compliance with a condition which had become impossible of performance. Such a course of action is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the welfare obligations of the State, as repeatedly emphasised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In view of the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned Letter No. 5208 dated 01.08.2025 issued by the Office of the District Judge, Balasore (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) rejecting the petitioner’s claim for retiral benefits on the ground of “no merit” is unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The same suffers from non-application of mind, ignores binding precedent, and results in grave injustice to an employee who has rendered the prime of his life in service of the judicial institution. The Opposite Parties are directed to extend all pensionary and retiral benefits to the petitioner, as admissible, treating the petitioner’s service as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, within a period of three months hence. The opposite party no.2 shall process the pension papers to be submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month and forward the same to the concerned authority under the State Government so as to complete the entire process within a period of three months.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed.