Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37800 of 2025 Bhagydhar Prusty ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. – Mr. Sanjib Mohanty -versus- Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bhubaneswar and others. ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. – Mr. Tarananda Pattanayak, Advocate for O.P. No.1 & 2. Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC for O.P. Nos.3 & 4 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 17.04.2026 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Shri Sanjib Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Tarananda Pattanayak, learned counsel appearing for the Utkal University-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and Smt. Sasmita Nayak, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties No.3 and 4. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to: Page 2 of 5. i) Admit the writ application. ii) Call for the record. iii) And after hearing the parties the case of the petitioner be allowed and pass necessary order to set aside Annexure-11 dtd:11.12.2025 and further direction be given to the opp. parties to sanction pension and pensionary benefit as has been sanctioned in case of Pratap Kumar Mohanty and others from the same list and the arrear to that effect be paid to the petitioner within a stipulated period. iv) And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.” 4. The facts, relevant only to decide the present application, are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Utkal University on 16.11.1990 on consolidated wage basis. The petitioner’s service was ultimately regularized as per order dated 25.07.2023 w.e.f. 16.11.1990. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on 30.11.2024. Despite rendering more than 30 years of continuous service, the petitioner was not paid pension on the ground that his case would be considered under the new contributory pension scheme dated 13.07.2006 of the Finance Department. 5. According to the petitioner, he, having been appointed in the year 1990, should be governed under the provisions of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1977 and his qualifying service ought to have been counted by taking his entire past service into account. Moreover, for the fault of the opposite party-authorities, the petitioner should not be made to suffer inasmuch as despite repeated orders passed by this Court in different writ applications as also the Supreme Court, the authorities took as long as 34 years to regularize the services of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be deprived Page 3 of 5. of his legitimate right to pension under the Odisha Pension Rules. 6. The stand of the University is that the matter of pension was referred to the Government, as petitioner’s emoluments were being paid from out of the grant sanctioned by the Government. Accordingly, on 10.10.2012, the Government in the Department of Higher Education, while concurring with the proposal for regularization of the services of 15 (fifteen) employees, including the petitioner, observed that necessary payment of salary and other allowances shall be made to the said employees by the University from its own resources without any financial burden on Government in future. It was further stipulated that the salary/other dues shall not be part of annual block grant sanctioned by the Government. 7. During the year 2023, the Registrar of the University allowed the salary and other allowances to the petitioner may be paid from the University’s own resources without any financial burden on the Government. 8. From the foregoing narrations and the stand taken by the Government, this Court finds that there is nothing left for adjudication in the writ application inasmuch as admittedly, the petitioner was appointed way back in the year 1990, but his services were regularized on the basis of the order dated 02.09.2023 of the Vice-Chancellor. The University passed an order on 25.07.2023 specifically mentioning therein that the services of the petitioner are regularized as Junior Assistant with effect from 16.11.1990 in the prevalent scale of pay. The said order is extracted herein below:- “Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in Contc No.2937 of 2012 on 17.07.2023 arising out of W.P.(C) No.1670 of 2002 and subsequent orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor on Page 4 of 5. 25.07.2023, the services of following Junior Assistants are hereby regularized with the dates of their initial appointment mentioned against each in the scale of pay 255 - 390 as per ORSP Rules, 1981 with usual dearness allowance and other allowances as admissible under the rules of the University from time to time.” 9. In view of the specific order quoted above, the petitioner must be deemed to have been a regular employee of the University from 16.11.1990. To such extent therefore, he would be entitled to pension as per the rules applicable to such employees, namely, the Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992. Such being the case, the University obviously cannot take a stand that the financial resources towards salary and other allowances, including pension, are to be provided by the Government. In fact, the Government has made it clear that the University can meet these expenses from its own resources. Since this is a case concerning a regular employee of the University, he cannot obviously be deprived of his legitimate pensionary dues by the University on the ground that his salary and other emoluments are dependent on the grant sanctioned by the Government from time to time. It is needless to mention that once he becomes a regular employee, it is for the University to meet the expenses towards his salary and other allowances. 10. It is a matter of concern that the petitioner, after rendering more than three decades of regular service to the University, retired on superannuation on 30.11.2024 without being granted pension and pensionary benefits. More than one year has passed in the meantime and yet he is deprived of his legitimate dues towards pension and pensionary benefits. It is well settled that pension, not being a gratis, cannot be withheld without any justified reason. Page 5 of 5. 11. This Court, after going through the materials available on record and in particular, the communications between the University authorities and the Government, finds no justified reason for the University to have deprived the petitioner from his pension and pensionary benefits. 12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ application is allowed. The University authorities are directed to pass necessary orders to sanction and disburse the pension and other pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner, as per the provisions of the Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992, without any further delay and in any case, not later than one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis