IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22800 of 2018 Surendra Prasad Mohanty …. Petitioner Dr. J. K. Lenka, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Parties Ms. B. K. Sahu, AGA Mr. A. Parida, Advoate (O.P. No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK DATE OF HEARING:16.01.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:01.05.2026 1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the opposite parties to forthwith sanction and release the retiral benefits, such as pension, gratuity etc. in his favour on the grounds stated. 2. In the case at hand, the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the opposite parties in not extending him the retiral benefits on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31st October, 2011. 2.1. According to the petitioner, the Basudevpur NAC (presently Municipality) with prior permission of the Government in Housing and Urban Development Department unanimously resolved to enforce octroi tax and hence, constituted a Selection Committee for recruitment of fifteen Octroi Tax Collectors and similar number of Peons AFR and one Octroi Tax Inspector for the Octroi Establishment and the said proposal was sent to the Government through the Collector, Bhadrak annexing a copy of the Council Resolution dated 26th August, 1985 as at Annexure-1. It is pleaded that in the year 1986, the Selection Committee requested the Employment Exchange, Bhadrak to sponsor the names of the candidates for recruitment to the above posts and accordingly, there was a selection by following a recruitment procedure and it was pursuant to a decision by a Resolution dated 15th February, 1986 i.e. Annexure-2. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was selected for the post of Octroi Tax Inspector under the NAC and issued with an appointment order dated 2nd July, 1987 vide Annexure-3. 2.2. The petitioner while continuing as the Octroi Tax Inspector, the Government after obtaining necessary information and receiving recommendation of the Collector, Bhadrak was pleased to sanction twelve posts each of Octroi Tax Collectors and Peons and one post of Octroi Tax Inspector vide order dated 3rd March, 1990 of the Housing and Urban Development Department and as such, all the Octroi staff were allowed to continue in their respective service including the petitioner evident from the order dated 5th March, 1990 of the Chairman, NAC, Basudevpur at Annexure-4. 2.3. In the meanwhile, the Octroi Section was divided into two, namely, Local Fund Service (LFS) and Non-LFS, the former dealing with services of Octroi Tax Inspector and all Class-III employees and the latter in respect of Class-IV employees, such as, Octroi Tax Collectors and Peons. Though the Non-LFS Section gave continuity to the post of Tax Collectors and Peons, but for the educational qualification of the petitioner, he was allowed to continue in the LFS cadre on the basis of sanction order dated 3rd March, 1990 and not only that, revised scale of pay was allowed to him as further evident from Annexure-5. 2.4. During continuance of the petitioner, he was given the charge of Community Organiser besides his own duty of being Octroi Tax Inspector pursuant to the Resolution of the NAC dated 31st March, 1995 as per Annexure-6, inasmuch as, the post was created under Section 73(1) of the Orissa Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) but the Government in Housing and Urban Development Department abolished octroi tax vide letter No.41895 dated 22nd November, 1999 but at the same time, directed the Executive Officers of the NACs to engage the Octroi staff in different works and accordingly, the NAC, Basudevpur by a Resolution dated 2nd December, 1999 accommodated the petitioner against the post of Community Organiser in terms of the guidelines of the Swarna Jayanti Sahari Rojgar Yojana (JSRY) and also submitted a proposal to the Government through the Collector, Bhadrak for sanction and absorb him against it. In that regard, the ADM, Bhadrak, who was the Project Director, DRDA, in the year 2000 submitted a recommendation to the Government vide letter No.661 dated 23rd June, 2000 for sanction of a regular post of Community Organiser and absorption of the petitioner in the said post. 2.5. While the matter stood thus, on 23rd October, 2000, the Collector, Bhadrak being the Principal Census Officer appointed the petitioner as Additional Charge Officer, Census Operation for the NAC and after completion of the census work and its successful accomplishment by him, he was kept in charge of the Executive Officer of the NAC by the orders of the Government twice on 13th February, 2001 and 30th May, 2001, which was efficiently managed during his tenure, which continued till March, 2008. Not only that, the petitioner thereafter was appointed as EVM Sealing Officer during the General Election, 2009, which was also successfully managed. It is pleaded that the petitioner was allowed revised pay by the District Audit Officer, Finance (LF) Department, Balasore and accordingly, salary was drawn by him in that scale of pay. The contention of the petitioner is that during his entire service career, he successfully performed the duties assigned to him with utmost satisfaction of the Authority concerned and was even allowed to function as the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the NAC under the RTI Act from 2006 up to the date of his retirement. Besides the above, it is contended that the petitioner was dealing with the Court matters, General and Miscellaneous and Poverty Alleviation Sections etc. referring to Annexure-7 series. Despite retirement with effect from 31st October, 2011, the petitioner also pleads that he was not paid salary from June, 2011 to October, 2011 and hence, he had to approach this Court in WP(C) No.12767 of 2012 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to release the same and differential salary besides retiral benefits, which was disposed of by order dated 3rd April, 2015 directing the Chairman of the NAC to take decision thereon within the stipulated period and for non-compliance, CONTC No.789 of 2015 was filed by him and it was disposed of on 26th November, 2015 and not only that, another CONTC had to be filed, consequent upon which, pursuant to the order dated 3rd April, 2015 therein, arrear salary was only released, not the differential salary and other retiral dues. 2.6. In the meantime, on the advice of the Government in Housing and Urban Development Department dated 29th March, 2017, the Chairman, Basudevpur Municipality was directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner with a speaking order in view of the direction issued by this Court in WP(C) No.12767 of 2012 and it was complied with vide Annexure-8 acknowledging the entitlements for him having rendered continuous service for nearly 25 years. Despite the petitioner having service from 1987 to 2011 and his drawing regular salary with all allowances admissible from time to time, which was within the knowledge of the Government and LFS (Finance Department), he was not provided with pension, gratuity etc. with other retiral benefits, all the more when, the Government allowed him to work as the Executive Officer of the NAC with financial power being the Drawing and Disbursing Authority (DDA) by order dated 13th February, 2001 on both the occasions and even the arrear salary was directed to be paid by the Municipality pursuant to the order dated 13th August, 2015 consequent upon the direction received from it. Under the above circumstances, it is pleaded that the petitioner is entitled to all such retiral dues including pension, which has not been allowed to him despite being in continuous service for 25 years, hence, necessary direction is required in that regard for compliance by the opposite parties. 3. Opposite Party No.2 filed counter affidavit and pleaded nothing adverse against the petitioner, rather, stated therein that he was allowed to draw revised pay by the District Audit Officer, Finance (LF) Department, Balasore. It is also pleaded that in the year 1986, the names of the candidates including the petitioner were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Bhadrak for the post of Octroi Tax Inspector and out of them, he was selected and accordingly appointed in 1987 and on the basis of the sanction order of the Government dated 3rd March, 1990, he and others selected for different posts were issued with regular appointment order on 5th March, 1990 in the scale of pay of Rs.780- 1160/-. It has also been approved that for the educational qualification of the petitioner being an MALLB, the petitioner was given the responsibility as the Community Organiser in addition to his own duty as Octroi Tax Inspector on 31st March, 1995 subsequent to the Resolution of the NAC dated 31st March, 1995. The other assignments given to the petitioner have also been pleaded up to the decision of the Chairman, Basudevpur Municipality in the year 2017 acknowledging the continuous service rendered by him having served 25 years and hence, pleaded that he is entitled to receive the benefits after retirement with effect from 31st October, 2011. 4. On the contrary, opposite party No.1 filing a counter pleaded therein that the selection of the petitioner to the post of Octroi Tax Inspector never received the approval of the Government and therefore, it is not a fact that the decision of the Council of the NAC on the appointment received any such sanction order. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner was allowed the revised scale of pay of Rs.3050- Rs.4590/- on the basis of the option exercised by him on 18th January, 1996. It is further pleaded that the petitioner was engaged as the Octroi Tax Inspector on ad hoc basis and on daily wage clearly revealed from the appointment order and not only that, Annexure-4 indicates that he was allowed to continue in the said post temporarily after sanction of the post by the Government in Housing and Urban Development Department by a decision dated 3rd March, 1990 and that his pay was fixed from time to time and was also revised after the Pay Commission report arrived in respect of the Municipal employees. It is pleaded that the petitioner admitted about him having posted as the Octroi Tax Inspector under the LFS Section, which did not give continuity to such post. That apart, the pleading is that after abolition of the post of Octroi Tax Inspector, the petitioner was assigned with the work of Community Organiser, which is not a promotional post, rather, the post was guided by the guidelines of SJSRY, which is nothing but a Scheme for a particular period till its existence. According to opposite party No.1, no such post of Community Organiser was ever created and therefore, the NAC had no authority to absorb the petitioner against such a post. It is further pleaded that the petitioner has miserably failed to produce any such document in respect of his permanent absorption in any other post after the post of Octroi Tax Inspector was abolished in the year 1999 and also with respect to creation of post of Community Organiser. With the facts pleaded as above, opposite party No.1 outrightly opposed the demand of pension, gratuity etc. of the petitioner seeking dismissal of the writ petition instead. 5. Gone through the rejoinder affidavit dated 19th September, 2022 of the petitioner. 6. Heard Dr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for the State and Mr. Parida, learned counsel for opposite party No.2. 7. Dr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to a date chart contends that the petitioner is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits including gratuity for having rendered service for 25 years till his superannuation in 2011 having worked in different capacities even as a regular Octroi Tax Inspector and as a Community Organiser with effect from 20th December, 1999 revealed from Annexure-7 series. It is contended that the ADM, Bhadrak requested the Director, Municipal Administration for creation of a post of Community Organiser and absorption of the petitioner in the said post indicating the fact that he has served since July, 1987 and also a trained official under SJSRY. Not only that, according to Dr. Lenka, learned counsel, the petitioner was appointed as the Executive Officer of the NAC by the decision of the Government dated 30th May, 2001 and that apart, he was allowed to draw regular pay approved on the recommendation of 5th and 6th Pay Commission and continued rendering service against the sanctioned post till retirement on 31st October, 2011 and therefore, he is entitled to pension and other retiral benefits. Referring to the rejoinder affidavit, it is further contended by Dr. Lenka that the petitioner belongs to LFS cadre and hence, he is entitled to pensionary benefits in view of Rule 47 of Chapter-VII of Odisha Local Fund Service (Pension) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules’). Further referring to Annexure-9 & 10 to the rejoinder affidavit, it is contended by Dr. Lenka that one Rashmi Ranjan Singh, Junior Assistant appointed in the Cuttack Municipal Corporation (CMC) initially engaged on NMR basis in 1992 was regularized on 12th March, 2012 with seniority and such service rendered as an NMR was even counted for pensionary benefits and he was included under the Old Pension Scheme applicable to the LFS cadre instead of NPS. In such view of the matter, Dr. Lenka, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner deserves a similar treatment granting him pension and other retiral benefits since 1987. Page 10 of 19 In course of hearing, the following decisions, such as, Gorakhpur University & others Vrs. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra & others AIR 2001 SC 2433; Amarkant Rai Vrs. State of Bihar & others (2015) 8 SCC 265; Saktipada Mohapatra Vrs. The State of Orissa & others decided on 2nd February, 2022 in Civil Appeal No.1215 of 2022; The State of Madhya Pradesh & others Vrs. Shyam Kumar Yadav & another in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. Civil Appeal No.25609 of 2018; and finally, Dharam Singh and others Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another 2025 INSC 998 are placed reliance on by Dr. Lenka, learned counsel with the contention that any such indifferent treatment to the petitioner would be a travesty of justice and in gross violation of Article(s) 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Sahu, learned AGA for the State would submit that in absence of any sanctioned post against which other petitioner was accommodated as Community Organiser, he is not entitled to any such reliefs. Referring to the facts pleaded on record, Ms. Sahu, learned AGA further submits that the initial engagement of the petitioner was without approval of the Government, nevertheless, he was selected for the post of Octroi Tax Inspector and allowed to join which was abolished in 1999 and it was for the NAC, Basudevpur to adjust him in any other post, but was appointed as the Community Organiser, a post which did not receive any such sanction of the Government. When the petitioner was allowed to function as a Community Organiser and that too under SJSRY, which is basically a Scheme for a particular period and continuance of employees thereunder depends on its continuation, notwithstanding any such responsibility assigned to him in between and until retirement in the year 2011, pension and other retiral benefits similar to a regular post cannot be demanded and acceded to. 9. Recorded the response of Mr. Parida, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 with reference to the counter affidavit filed acknowledging the appointment, continuance of service even with abolition of the post of Octroi Tax Inspector in 1999 and other duties assigned to the petitioner till the very end and also the decision of the Chairman, Basudevpur Municipality dated 29th March, 2017 vide Annexure-8 regarding the entitlement of all such benefits post-retirement. 10. In Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra (supra), the Apex Court upheld the judgment of the Allahabad High Court on the decision of the University and directed entitlement of pension and Provident Fund to the first respondent therein with penal interest payable @ 18%. Referring to the above decision, Dr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is equally entitled to pension and other benefits after retirement. Relying on earlier decisions in R.Kapur Vrs. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income Tax and another (1994) 6 SCC 589, State of Kerala and others Vrs. M. Padmanabhan Nair AIR 1985 SC 356 and Som Prakash Rekhi Vrs. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 212, the Apex Court in Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra (supra) observed that pension and gratuity are no longer a bounty for being distributed by Government but are valuable rights acquired by the employees and any such delay in settlement and disbursement thereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest. 10.1. In Dharam Singh (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with ad-hocism observed in the following words: “17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State Governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” 10.2. The Apex Court in The State of Gujrat & others VRs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 1109 of 2022 disposed of on 18th February, 2022 held and observed that the State was not right and justified to claim that the service rendered by the respondent therein was ad hoc, hence he is not entitled to pension and pensionary benefits. It was also concluded therein that the State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong and any such decision disentitling an employee of his pension and other benefits even after rendering long years of service which is nothing but unjust and unreasonable and as a welfare State, it could not have taken such a stand and at last upheld the decision of the High Court having not committed any error directing payment of pensionary benefits and dismissing the SLP. 11. Having considered the case laws relied on, this Court is to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to pension and other benefits post-retirement. The petitioner was selected after recruitment procedure conducted by a Selection Committee pursuant to the decision of the NAC vide Annexure-1. Such selection was held with the names of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Bhadrak subsequent to a resolution of the NAC as per Annexure-2. With such selection conducted, the petitioner received appointment as the Octroi Tax Inspector under the NAC, Basudevpur in the year 1987. Subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner vide Annexure-3, the posts were sanctioned by the Government in 1990 including the post held by the petitioner as the Octroi Tax Inspector. Even considering the counter affidavit of opposite party No.1, the Court is inclined to hold that the selection to the post of Octroi Tax Inspector was conducted with the permission of the Government in Housing and Urban Development Department. In other words, the NAC, Bhadrak with prior permission of the Government resolved to impose octroi tax and constituted a Selection Committee to recruit Octroi staff to manage the Establishment and finally, the posts were sanctioned as evident from Annexure-4. To claim that there has been no approval at the time of selection in 1987 and the NAC did not have the permission of the Government is unacceptable, hence, liable to rejection. Even after the posts were sanctioned in the year 1990, no rider was fixed on the premise that the selection by the NAC needed approval of the Government, rather, the petitioner was allowed to continue as the Octroi Tax Inspector against the post sanctioned. Furthermore, the Court finds that a selection was held and after written examination and viva-voce conducted by the Selection Committee, the appointment was given to the petitioner and others. The Government by order dated 3rd March, 1990, sanctioned one post of Octroi Tax Inspector, whereafter it was followed by a regular appointment of the petitioner. But to allege that the very selection of the petitioner is illegal and without prior permission of the Government having allowed him to continue in service thereafter deserves rejection, as the selection was held and was followed by regular appointment against the sanction of the post of Octroi Establishment of the NAC. According to the Court, opposite party No.1 cannot be allowed to turnaround to claim that the appointment of the petitioner from the inception is illegal. The petitioner was given appointment against a sanctioned post in 1990 by the NAC and therefore, his selection and engagement in the post of Octroi Tax Inspector cannot be allowed to be challenged by opposite party No.1 when his continuation was never questioned. 12. The plea of opposite party No.1 is that the post of Octroi Tax Inspector was under LFS Section, which did not give continuity to such post. It is claimed that the said post was not allowed for Basudevpur Municipality. Rightly, a question was posed by Dr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner that if the post was not allowed for the Municipality and for that matter, NAC, Basudevpur, how the Government sanctioned the same. Rightly or wrongly, the petitioner was allowed to serve as the Octroi Tax Inspector under LFS cadre and therefore, this Court is in agreement with Dr. Lenka, learned counsel to hold that opposite party No.1 cannot be allowed to turn back and to claim that the NAC had no such entitlement for the LFS Section, which did not have continuity to such a post. Page 16 of 19 13. Considering the question of qualification of the petitioner, in view of the decision of the Government and subsequent abolition of the Octroi Establishment vide Annexure-7 series, he was allowed to engage in the Municipality as a Community Organiser under SJSRY with effect from 2nd December, 1999 and thereafter, on 20th December, 2000, whereafter, the ADM, Bhadrak requested the Director, Municipal Administration for creation of the post and his absorption in that post for having served since 8th July, 1987. It is not in denial that the petitioner was allowed to function in different capacities after engagement pursuant to Annexure-7 series as the Community Organiser. The petitioner was even assigned the responsibility of the Municipality as its Executive Officer in-charge and also held the position as its DDA. Under the circumstances narrated above and when the Government allowed the petitioner to continue in service with other duties and functions assigned to him post-abolition of Octroi Establishment and was even allowed to draw salary under 5th and 6th Pay Commission scale of pay till retirement, the Court is inclined to hold that he is entitled to pension and retiral benefits. 14. The initial appointment of the petitioner is against a sanctioned post of Octroi Tax Inspector vide Annexure-4 and his continuation in service is on the strength of a decision of the Government pursuant to Annexure-7 series and even though the Community Organiser is a schematic post, but he has been allowed to serve the Municipality in different capacities till retirement on 31st October, 2011. Interestingly, the petitioner was assigned onerous responsibilities time and again as the Additional Charge Officer for Census Operation, 2001, EVM Sealing Officer during the General Election of 2009, PIO under the RTI Act for nearly five years and Executive Officer in-charge besides own duties and permitted to exercise the financial powers as well and with so much of service rendered by him, the Court fails to understand as to why he has been treated indifferently. It is not that the petitioner’s service was discontinued after abolition of Octroi Establishment, rather, he was allowed to remain by the Government like others pursuant to Annexure-7 series as the instruction received from the Housing and Urban Development Department dated 20th November, 1999 was to the effect that all such Octroi staff are to be engaged in other works. Someone having rendered service in a sanctioned post from 1990 and onwards and thereafter continued to serve the Municipality and the Government from 1999 till retirement in 2011, according to the Court, denying any such demand for pension and pensionary benefits would be a travesty of justice. It is nothing but utilizing the services for so long and still not inclined to acknowledge the same. 15. The Court considering the decision of the Apex Court in Dharam Singh (supra) is inclined to hold that the continuous service of the petitioner day after day and year after year in the Establishment of the NAC and Municipality deserves recognition. Any such practice of engaging someone on an ad hoc basis or temporarily over a longer period of time without recognizing the services rendered is nothing but an act of extraction of labour and the Apex Court in the decision (supra) observed that any such practice of engagement temporarily corrodes the confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. It has also been observed therein that ad-hocism thrives where the administration is opaque. When the petitioner served for such a long period of time and initially was accommodated against a sanctioned post as Octroi Tax Inspector with a selection process held, which at best may be claimed as irregular and not illegal, it was for opposite party No.1 to consider granting him pension and other pensionary benefits. Since the petitioner belonged to LFS cadre, in view of Rule 47 of the Rules, he is entitled to pension, gratuity etc. Even though there was a recommendation to the Government to sanction a regular post of Community Organiser to absorb the petitioner and it did not materialize, nevertheless, he was allowed to continue and serve the Municipality till retirement, the Court reaches at a conclusion that opposite party No.1 should be directed to grant pension and other retiral benefits to him as per the provisions of the Rules. 16. Furthermore, the contention of Dr. Lenka, learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner’s pay was fixed with effect from 1st January, 1996 revealed from Annexure-5 under ORSP Rules, 1998 in the year 2008 as the Octroi Tax Inspector, hence, to claim that he was not allowed to continue in such capacity is incomprehensible. Considering the case of the petitioner from any angle, it is to be concluded that he is entitled to all such benefits including pension in terms of Rule 47 of the Rules. In other words, the Court finds no reason in denying pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner whose service has been acknowledged by the NAC and Municipality and when he continued to function as such with the approval of the Government and most interestingly discharged the duty as Executive Officer in-charge of the Municipality not once, but twice. Being alive to the line of decisions and the services rendered by the petitioner with continuity till 2011, it would result in gross injustice if he is not allowed pension and other benefits and therefore, the Court is in concurrence with the view of opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-8. 17. Accordingly, it is ordered. 18. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to sanction pension and grant other pensionary benefits to the petitioner with effect from the date of his engagement i.e. 2nd July, 1987 as the Octroi Tax Inspector in terms of the Rules at the earliest preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Manoj