IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.2713 of 2024 State of Odisha & Ors. …. Appellants Represented by Adv.- Ms. Suman Pattanayak, AGA -versus- Anuradha Choudhury …. Respondent Represented by Adv.- Mr. L. Mohanty, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER 20.02.2026 This Intra Court Appeal by the State calls in question a learned Singel Judge’s order dated 17.05.2023, whereby Respondent-employee’s WP(C) No.13270 of 2023 having been favoured, relief has been accorded to her in the following terms. “In view of such position, this Court is of the opinion that the Voluntary Retirement application submitted by the petitioner on 17.09.2013 is deemed to have been accepted on completion of 3 (three) months from the date of such submission i.e. 17.12.2013. By taking the date 17.12.2013 as the date of Voluntary Retirement of the petitioner, Opposite Party No.4 is directed to extend the benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 42 of the OCS Pension Rules in favour of the petitioner. The entire exercise is to be undertaken and completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of this order.” Order No. 01. Page 2 of 3 2. Learned AGA appearing for the Appellant submits that there is a delay of 470 days in filing the Appeal and therefore, the same is accompanied by application in I.A. No.7148 of 2024 supported by an affidavit seeking its condonation. A perusal of the application and the affidavit, do not reflect plausible explanation for the long delay brooked and therefore, the application is liable to be rejected. 3. Even on facts we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order, inasmuch as the Respondent had made the VRS application on 07.09.2013 and no decision within the statutory limit having been taken thereon deemed acceptance by operation of law fortified with effect from 17.12.2013, the prescribed period being three months under Rule 42 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. This aspect has been rightly discussed by the learned Single Judge at paragraph 7 of the impugned order. We agree with the same. 4. The vehement submission of learned AGA that the Respondent had abandoned the services and therefore, the vinculum juris of employer employee ceased to exist after such abandonment and as a consequence the Respondent was not entitled to any terminal benefit is bit difficult to countenance. The Apex Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416 has held that the service in public employment although begins with contract would escalate to the level of status and that status would come to an end only after removal, retirement, resignation & death in harness. Merely because, the Appellants assumed abandonment, Court cannot hastily agree with the same. More particularly, nothing of the sort was stated in their order dated 26.09.2019 which did not accord the request for voluntary retirement. Merely saying that there is no VRS application will be sufficient. Ideally speaking a formal order has been issued by the Appellant to the effect that on account of abandonment of service, the employment ceased to exist. In the above circumstance, the Appeal being devoid of merits and the application for condonation being negatived, is liable to be rejected. Registry to send a copy of this order to Respondent counsel by speed post immediately. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Prasant