IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13755 of 2014 Mantha Abhiram …. Petitioner Ms. Sujata Jena, Senior Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA Mr. B.K. Dash, Senior Advocate (O.P. Nos. 2 and 3) CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 19.02.2026 06. 1. Heard Ms. Jena, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Dash, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party Nos.2 & 3 besides Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for the State. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned letter dated 19th July, 2013 and to direct the opposite parties to adopt the resolution of Government dated 28th June, 2014 thereby enhancing his age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years with such other consequential reliefs sought for. 3. In course of hearing it is submitted that by the time the petitioner retired, the resolution of the Government had already arrived but the retirement age was not extended. 4. Mr. Dash, learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 produced a copy of the judgment of this Court in W.A No. 306 of 2017 (Chief Executive, Odisha Renewable Energy Development Agency Vrs. Krushna Chandra Maharana and another) and batch matters and submits that the case of the petitioner may be considered by the Authority concerned while dealing with his representation as at Annexure-6. 5. The relevant extract to the judgment cited at the Bar is reproduced herein below: “12. Having considered the above submissions, the Court is of the view that the central issue whether the employees of OREDA are entitled to seek the benefit of enhancement of the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years on par with the employees of the State Government and other State Government PSUs has been rendered academic on account of the developments noted hereinbefore which occurred during the pendency of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. Consequently, this Court is not required to examine whether in fact OREDA is a PSU or not. However, this is possible that the said question might arise in the context of some other autonomous body like the OREDA where the question of extension to its employees of the benefits available to the State Government employees might arise. The Court is of the view that the facts relevant to each such autonomous body would have to be considered before arriving at the answer to such question. Consequently, the Court considers it appropriate to hold that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge which is challenged in these appeals will not constitute a precedent in the event such question arises in future. 13. The Court notes that as far as OREDA is concerned, the impugned judgment fairly balances the equities and the only relief granted to its employees who had to retire on attaining the age of 58 years and who are 11 in number, is the reworking of their pension on the basis that the age of superannuation should be treated as 60 years. Considering that none of them had the benefit of arrears salary and only a limited relief has been granted, this Court does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.” 6. Recording the submissions for learned Senior Advocates appearing for the respective parties and learned counsel for the State with reference to the pleading on record and the decision in Krushna Chandra Maharana (supra), this Court is inclined to direct opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the representation i.e. Annexure-6 of the petitioner in the light of the discussion hereinabove and grant of entitlements to him in case his age of superannuation is treated as 60 years. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 shall immediately attend to and dispose of the representation dated 21st July, 2026 as at Annexure-6 in the light of the case law cited above and in the event, age of retirement of the petitioner is extended, to ensure release and disbursement of his entitlements completing above exercise as early as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 9. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok