Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 20437 of 2014 Rabi Narayan Sahu ..... Petitioner Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 2) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 24.07.2026 Order No. 05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. M.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Party and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 2. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may graciously be pleased to allow this writ of application by granting following reliefs:- (A) A writ of Certiorari be issued quashing the notice under Annexure-3. (B) A writ of Mandamus be issued directing the Opp. Parties, Particularly Opp. Party No. 2 and 3 to allow the petitioner to continue in his post of Conductor till attaining his age of Page 2 of 4. superannuation on 60 years i.e. 30.10.2016 instead of 30.10.2014 in compliance of the Govt. decision under Annexure-2 and 3 with all service benefits and financial benefits. (C) Or in alternative, any other appropriate direction(s), order(s) be passed so as to give complete relief to the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the case as this Hon'ble High court deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that even though by the time Petitioner was issued with the notice of retirement on 09.10.2014 under Annexure-4 making him to retire at the age of 58 years, Govt. had already taken a decision to extend the age of retirement to 60 years, Petitioner in terms of the said office order, was made to retire w.e.f.31.10.2014. However, prior to such date of retirement of the Petitioner on 31.10.2014, the present writ petition was filed before this Court on 21.10.2014 challenging such action of the Corporation. 4.1. It is also contended that subsequently after the retirement of the Petitioner, the Corporation took a decision in the year 2015 enhancing the date of retirement from 58 years to 60 years as found from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner prior to his retirement was before this Court in the present writ petition, his claim to get the benefit of salary till he attained the age of 60 years, is covered by an order passed by this Court in the case of Premalata Panda vs. State of Page 3 of 4. Odisha & Anr. (W.P.(C) No. 9271 of 2015 decided on 14.07.2015). This Court in Para 16(a) of the order has held as follows:- “a) The employees, who moved the Court of law irrespective of the fact whether interim order was passed in their favour or not, shall be entitled to full salary up to the age of 60 years and arrear salary shall be paid to them after adjusting the amount, if any, paid.” 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand contended that since Petitioner by the time he retired on 31.10.2014, no such decision was there extending the age of retirement to 60 years and such a decision was only taken by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 vide communication dtd.30.07.2015 under Annexure-B, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of continuance up to 60 years with release of his salary. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that the present writ petition was filed on 21.10.2014 challenging the retirement notice dtd.09.10.2014 issued under Annexure-4 making the Petitioner to retire at the age of 58 years. By the time such a decision was taken to retire the Petitioner at the age of 58 years, Govt. in the Finance Department had already taken a decision to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. Such decision taken by the Govt. was accepted by the Commerce and Transport Department with due communication to the Corporation vide communication dtd.30.07.2015 under Annexure-B. Page 4 of 4. 6.1. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Premalata Panda so cited (supra), this Court is of the view that since Petitioner prior to his retirement was before this Court and it is not disputed that the age of retirement was extended from 58 years to 60 years vide letter dtd.30.07.2015, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of salary till he attained the age of 60 years. While holding so, this Court directs the Opp. Party- Corporation to release the salary till Petitioner attained the age of 60 years as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha