IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 20240 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Harsamani Dei …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. K.P. Mishra, Sr. Adv. Along with Ms. S. Matty, Adv. For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:08.05.2026 & Date of Judgment: 08.05.2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. The present Writ Petition inter alia challenging order dated 21.12.2021 so passed by the Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-1. Vide said order, Petitioner was given premature retirement in lieu of 3(three) months’ notice in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 71(a) of the Odisha Service Code (in short Code). 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi worker in the year 1985 and while continuing as such, promoted to the rank of Village Level Worker in the year 1990. Subsequently, Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Lady Supervisor in the year 2011. 2.1. It is contended that while so continuing as a Lady Supervisor in terms of the order of promotion issued in the year 2011, petitioner for the first time was implicated in Koraput Vigilance Case No.25 dated 21.11.2021 under Annexure-2. 2.2. It is contended that because of her implication in the aforesaid vigilance case and taking into account the guideline issued by the Govt. in GA and PG Dept. 24.09.2019 under Annexure-3, Petitioner’s name was referred to the committee in order to give her premature amount in terms of the provision contained under rule 71(a) of the Code. 2.3. Learned Senior Counsel contended that basing on the recommendation made by the committee, Petitioner was given premature retirement vide order dated 21.11.2021 under Annexure-8. While assailing the impugned order that premature retirement, it is contended that, by the time case of the Petitioner was referred to the Committee, since Petitioner had already attained the age of 53 years, in view of the provision contained in para 4 read with para 7 of the guideline dated 24.09.2019 under Annexure-3, Petitioner’s name could not have been referred to the Committee in order to give her premature retirement. Para 4 and 7 of the guideline reads as follows:- “4. The cases of Group-A & Group-B Officers on their completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age, as the case may be, on the 31st March, 30th June, 30th September and the 31 December of a year shall be reviewed by the Review Committees constituted in pursuance of these instructions. Similarly the cases of Group-C Officers and Group-D employees shall be reviewed on the 30th June and the 31st December of the year by the relevant Review Committee. xxx xxx xxx 7. The cases of Govt. servants covered under paragraph-4 above should be reviewed six months before their completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age, as the case may be as per the following time schedule. Sl. No. Quarter in which review is To be made Cases of Officer/Employee Completing to years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age. Dateline of Furnishing the Report to the G.A & P.G. Dept. 1 January to March July to September of The same year 15th April 2 April to June October to December of the same year 15th July 3 July to September January to March of the next year 15th October 4 October to December April to June of the next year 15th January of the next year A register of officers/employees who are completing 30 years of qualifying service or attaining 50 years of age and on their attaining 55 years of age is to be maintained. The register should be scrutinized at the beginning of every quarter by a senior officer in the Department/ Office and the review undertaken according to the above schedule. In addition to the above, the Secretary of the Administrative Department is also empowered to constitute internal Committees to scrutinize all the cases required to be reviewed in each quarter and finalize the specific cases to be reviewed: These Internal Committees will ensure that the service record of the employees being reviewed, alongwith a summary bringing out all relevant information, is submitted to the review committees at least one month before the due date of review. The administrative Departments shall furnish reports of every review conducted quarterly in respect of their own offices as well as all the offices functioning under their administrative control to the G.A & P.G Department in the format prescribed in Annexure-VI” 2.4. It is contended that since by the time, Petitioner’s name was referred to the committee, she had already attained the age of 53 years her date of birth being 05.07.1968, so available in Annexure-5, referral of the Petitioner’s name to the Committee and consequential order of premature retirement issued vide the impugned order dated 21.12.2021 being contrary to the guideline under Annexure-3 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 2.5. In support of his aforesaid submission, reliance was placed the decision of this Court rendered on 25.11.2025 in WPC No.12438 of 2022, (Ratnakar Sethy v. State of Odisha & Ors.). This Court placing reliance on another order passed in the case of Ratnakar Mallick Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. in (W.P.(C) No.14146 of 2022) decided on 28.10.2025 held as follows in Para 6.1 and 6.2 of the order. “6.1. Similarly, petitioner was imposed with punishment of one Black Mark vide order dated 15.03.2022 in Deogarh District Proceeding No.11/2018. Petitioner which is also not disputed, was never communicated with order dated 10.12.2021, so passed in Puri District Proceeding No.3/2016 and 1/2017. By the time petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order dated 15.03.2022 in Deogarh District Proceeding No.11/2018, petitioner’s name was already recommended by the Review Committee to give Premature Retirement to the petitioner in its proceeding dated 15.03.2022 under Annexure-11. 6.2. Since petitioner was never given an opportunity to challenge the order of punishment so imposed on 10.12.2021 in Puri District Proceeding No.3/2016 and 1/2017 and order dated 15.03.2022 in Deogarh District Proceeding No.11/2018, such punishment as per the considered view of this Court, could not have been taken into account by the Review Committee in recommending the case of the petitioner for Premature Retirement. Not only that no document has been enclosed by the State-Opp. Parties, showing communication of any adverse CCR/PAR against the petitioner during his entire service career, till he was given such Premature Retirement vide order dated 16.03.2022 under Annexure-1.” 2.6. It is also contended that save and except the implication of the Petitioner in the aforesaid vigilance proceeding basing on which Petitioner’s name was referred to the Committee, no other proceeding was pending against the Petitioner nor any adverse CCR was ever communicated. But in the vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was acquitted subsequently vide judgment dated 14.03.2024 in GR Vigilance case No.20 of 2021 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Vigilance, Bhawanipatna under Annexure-7. 2.7. It is also contended that by the time Petitioner’s name was referred to the Committee there was no sufficient material to give premature retirement to the Petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under Rule- 70(a) of the Code, as Petitioner was having no adverse CCR at any point of time. Making all these submissions learned Senior Counsel contended that impugned order of premature retirement requires interference of this Court. 3. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned ASC on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken the counter affidavit filed by Opp. No.2 and 3. It is contended that while so continuing as a Lady Supervisor, petitioner after her implication in Koraput Vigilance Misc. Case No.25 dated 21.11.2021, was arrested on 22.11.2021 and was also charge-sheeted subsequently. 3.1. It is contended that as per the report of CDPO, Sinapali since it was reported that integrity of the Petitioner is doubtful during her incumbency as Lady Supervisor, Petitioner’s case was referred to the Committee in terms of the guidelines issued by the G.A. & PG department on 24.09.2021 under Annexure-3. 3.2. Since the committee recommended to the State Government to give premature retirement to the petitioner, basing on the recommendation made by the committee in its proceeding dated 26.11.2021 under Annexure-A/2, Petitioner was given premature retirement vide impugned order dated 21.11.2021 under Annexure-1. Stand taken in Para 4 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: “4. That in reply to the averments made in Paragraph-1 to the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the order passed on dt.21.12.2020 vide Annexure-1, by Opp. Party No-2 in the writ petition is correct as per law without any mala-fide intention and the same was passed after due verification and inquiry by District Review Committee on dt.26.11.2021. It is further submitted that, petitioner Smt. Harshamani Dei, was arrested on dt.22.11.2021 at 8.45 AM, being involved in Criminal/Vigilance case under section 7 of prevention of corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 and she has been charge sheeted under above section and was facing trial in the court of law. It is further submitted that as per report of the C.D.P.O Sinapali the integrity of petitioner is doubtful during her incumbency since 2018 as Lady Supervisor in Sinapali I.C.D.S Project. Her work performance was also not at all satisfactory. She was irregular in submission of reports and returns for which the schemes under ICDS sector were being suffered a lot. The Petitioner was regularly found absent from sector and project headquarters for which the petitioner was also under suspension vide this office order No-2307 dt.26.11.2021.” 4. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made this court finds that petitioner enter into service as an Anganwadi worker in the year 1985. While so continuing Petitioner was promoted to the rank of VLW in the year 1990 and as Lady Supervisor in the year 2011. However, because of her implication in Koraput Vigilance PS Case No.25, dated 21.11.2021, Petitioner’s name was referred to the committee and the committee in its proceeding dated 26.11.2021 under Annexure-A/2 recommended to the Govt. to give premature retirement to the petitioner. Such report of the committee on being accepted, petitioner was given premature retirement vide order 21.12.2021 under Annexure-1 of Opp. Party No.2. 4.1. However, it is found that by the time Petitioner’s name was referred to the committee, petitioner admittedly had attained the age of 53 years her date of birth being 05.07.1968 as reflected in Annexure-5. Placing reliance on the stipulation contained in Para 4 read with Para 7 of the guideline issued by the Govt. on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-2 and the decisions rendered by this court in the case of Ratnakar Mallick so followed in the case of Ratnakar Sethy so cited (supra), this is the view of this Court Petitioner’s name could not have been referred to the committee on 26.11.2021, she having crossed the age of 50 years 4.2. Since by the time the Committee took up the issue and recommended to give premature retirement to the Petitioner vide proceeding dated 26.11.2021, under Annexure-A/2, Petitioner had already attained the age of 53 years, not only the recommendation is bad in the eye of law, but also its acceptance. It is also found, save and except the implication of the Petitioner in the vigilance proceeding, no material was placed by the State, showing anything adverse against the Petitioner during her entire service career starting from the year 1985 till her name was referred to the Committee in the year 2021. 4.3. It is also found that in the vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was honorably acquitted vide judgment dated 14.03.2024 under Annexure-7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the impugned order of premature retirement has been illegally passed without having any materials against the Petitioner and in violation of the guideline issued by the GA Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-2. 4.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order dated 21.11.2021 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-1. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to reinstate the Petitioner in her services with passing of an appropriate order within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The break period of service be regularized in accordance with law, on notional basis with extension of the service benefits as due and admissible. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 8th May, 2026/Jyoti