IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.33474 of 2021 Ajit Kumar Singh and Others …. Petitioners Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC Mr. P.K. Muduli, Adv. (for O.P. Nos.2 to 4) COROM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 20.01.2026 21. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp Parties to show cause as to why the order passed by the Opp Party No 2 dtd. 24.09.2021 under Annexure-5 on the representation pursuant to the direction of this Hon’ ble Court shall not be quashed/set aside And/or as to why the decision of the Board in its 438th meeting held on dtd. 15.09.2020 giving stagnation increment benefit prospectively to onroll employees/ executives shall not be quashed p. 2 p. 2 And for as to why the fixing of an date of enforcement of the order vide Annexure-2 from 30.09.2020 shall not be declared as illegal and arbitrary And/or as to why the petitioners who have retired after the cut off date le 31.12.2015 for calculation of stagnation period and before 30.08 2020 shall not be entitled to get stagnation increment as per office order vide Annexure- 2 like the on roll/ existing executives. And if they show no cause or show insufficient cause, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to make the Rule absolute by directing the Opposite Parties to release the stagnation Increment in favour of the petitioners as terminal dues within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court And pass such further order/orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case And for which kind act the Petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray. 4. It is contended that because of the decision taken by the Board in its 438th meeting held on 15.09.2020 so far as extension of stagnation increment is concerned, Petitioners were deprived to get the benefit. Petitioners when raised such claim, the same was rejected vide the impugned order dt.24.09.2021 under Annexure-5. 4.1. It is contended that since because of the decision taken in the impugned meeting held on 15.09.2020, present Petitioners were discriminated vis-à-vis similarly situated employees and their claim to get the benefit was rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-5, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. p. 3 p. 3 5. The Corporation on its appearance, filed the counter affidavit justifying the rejection inter alia on various grounds. 6. Considering the stand taken by the Petitioners and the stand taken in the counter affidavit by the Corporation, this Court passed the following order on 10.09.2025. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 3. Additional affidavit filed in Court by the learned counsel appearing for O.P. Nos.2 to 4-Corporation with service of copy on the learned counsel for the petitioners. The same be kept in record. 4. Considering the stand taken in the additional affidavit, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation is directed to take further instruction with regard to the basis of calculating the liability at Rs.2.71 Crores. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation is directed to give a detailed description about such liability on the next date indicating the number of employees who will be eligible to get the benefit with number of increments they will get, if the date for consideration of the stagnation increment is taken as 01.01.2016. 5. As requested by learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, list this matter on 22.09.2025. 6.1. Pursuant to such order passed by this Court, the Corporation initially filed an affidavit on 10.09.2025 inter alia taking the following ground in para-4: “That, if the benefit of stagnation increment is given from the last day of retirement of those executives from 01.01.2016 to 31.08.2020 by considering two (2) increments (tentative), in p. 4 p. 4 that event, the financial implication will be 2.71 Crore towards retiral benefit and arrear salary will be Rs.7,77,515.00 (approx..). This may increase as few executives may be eligible for more than two (2) increments also. 6.2. This Court after going through the stand taken in the aforesaid affidavit, when directed the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation to give the details, a further affidavit was filed by the Corporation on 22.09.2025 and 10.11.2025. In the affidavit dt.10.11.2025, the following stand has been taken by the Corporation in paragraph-4. Relevant extract of the said stand reads as follows: xxx xxx xxx In order to calculate the exact stagnation increment as well as the nos. of Ex-Employees who will get how many nos. of increments, much efforts were made at the Head Office as well as field Office levels to trace out Service Record of all 123 nos. of employees (approximately) with the applicable Promotion Rules at different points of time over the years. After examination of Service Record of all 123 nos. of employees (approximately), it is found that 109nos. (approximately)of Ex-employees are prima facie appears to be eligible for stagnation increments, in case same will be granted w.e.f. 01.01.2016.Two (02) nos. of Ex- employees (approximately) will get only one Stagnation Increment, twenty (20) nos. of Ex-employees (approximately) will get two Stagnation Increment, twenty(20) nos. of Ex-employees(approximately) will get two three stagnation increments and thirty (30) nos. of Ex-employees (approximately) will get four Stagnation Increments. The financial liability in case of two (02) nos. of Ex-employees (approximately) who will get only one Stagnation Increment, will be Rs. 2,98,227/- (approx.) (Rs. 1,16,424/-(approx.) towards arrear salary and Rs. 1,81,803/-(approx.) towards retiral benefit). The financial liability in case of twenty (20) nos. of Ex- employees (approximately) who will get two (02) Stagnation Increments, will be Rs. 86,65,243/-(approx.) (Rs.42,06,384/-(approx.) towards arrear salary and Rs.44,58,859/-(approx.) towards retiral benefit). The p. 5 p. 5 financial liability in case of 57 nos. of Ex-employees (approximately) who will get three (03) Stagnation Increments, will be Rs. 3,46,08,693/-(approx.) (Rs. 1,65,67,092/-(approx.) towards arrear salary and Rs. 1,80,41,601/-(approx.) towards retiral benefit). The financial liability in case of thirty (30)nos. of Ex- employees (approximately) who will get four (04) Stagnation Increments, will be Rs. 2,28,86,358/- (approx.) (Rs.99,20,448/-(approx.) towards arrear salary and Rs.1,29,65,910/-(approx.) towards retiral benefit) The arrear salary and retiral benefit for 109 nos. of ex- employees (approx.) will be Rs. 6,64,58,521/-(approx.) for the above 109 nos. of ex-employees (approx.) xxx xxx xxx 6.3. Relying on the affidavit so filed, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that if the Petitioners along with the other eligible employees, which comes to approximately 109 will be extended with the benefit of stagnation increment as due and admissible, the Corporation will have to pay a sum of Rs.6,64,58,528/- approximately towards arrear salary and arear differential retirement benefits. It is accordingly contended that since the burden on the Corporation will be very high, if the stagnation increment will be extended in favour of those 109 numbers of employees including the petitioners, the Corporation consciously took the decision in its proceeding dt.15.09.2020 not to extend the benefit in favour of the employees who have retired prior to 01.01.2016. 7. Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the other hand contended that taking into account the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the affidavit filed by the Corporation pursuant to the order p. 6 p. 6 passed by this Court on 15.09.2025, the Petitioners will have no grievance, if the stagnation increment as due and admissible, is extended on notional basis till the petitioners attain their age of superannuation and Petitioners be extended with the differential retiral benefits as due and admissible. 7.1. 7.1. It is also fairly contended that Petitioners will not raise any further claim, if the Corporation extend the benefit on notional basis with release of the differential retiral benefits so indicated in affidavit dt.07.11.2025. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioners were aggrieved by the decision taken by the Corporation in its 438th meeting dt.15.09.2020, so far as extension of stagnation increment is concerned. When the Petitioners were discriminated with regard to getting the benefit of stagnation increment and this Court directed for consideration of their claim, the same was rejected vide order dt.24.09.2021 under Annexure-5. 8.1. Considering the materials available on record and the stand taken in the affidavit, more particularly, affidavit dt.07.11.2025 and the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that Petitioners will be satisfied, if the arrear differential retiral benefit is extended by allowing the stagnation increment as due and admissible on national basis, this Court while quashing the impugned order under Annexure-5 directs Opp. party- p. 7 p. 7 No.3 to extend the benefit of stagnation increment in favour of the present Petitioners as due and admissible, on notional basis, till they attain the age of superannuation. On such extension of the stagnation increment on notional basis as due and admissible, the Corporation is directed to calculate the differential retiral benefits of the Petitioners as will be due and admissible and release the same as expeditiously as possible. Opp. Party No.3 is directed to complete the entire exercise as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3)months from the date of receipt of this order. 8.3. It is however observed that this order is passed on special consideration and it will not be treated as a precedent. 9. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sangita