Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27124 (ORI)

Suresh Chandra Satapathy v. State of Odisha

2026-02-04

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

body2026
JUDGMENT : BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- (i) Admit the writ petition; (ii) Call for the records, (iii) Issue RULE NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the letter/order bearing Ref No. 2596/OSBC/4068 dated 28.12.2020 passed by the opposite party no-2 under Annexure-14 shall not be quashed; (iv) If the Opposite parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions thereby quashing the letter/order bearing Ref No. 2596/OSBC/4068 dated 28.12.2020 passed by the opposite party no-2 under Annexure-14. (v) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions thereby directing the Opposite Parties to extend all the service benefits including the admitted arrear dues of the petitioner towards salary for the period from 01.04.2018 to 02.12.2019 within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.vi) And, the Orissa State Beverages Corporation leave Limited may be directed to release all the post retirement benefits like gratuity, encashment, P.F dues etc forthwith to the petitioner as the petitioner has retired from Orissa State Beverages Corporation Limited recruitment benefits have been received from both the opposite parties; no vii) And, pass such other order/order, direction /directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound. 3. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as an employee under Opp. Party No.3, he along with some other employees working in Oil Odisha were Deputed to work in Orissa State Beverage Corporation Limited (in short “Corporation”) vide letter dt.12.10.2001 under Annexurre-1. 3.1. It is contended that though Petitioner along with similarly situated employees were on deputation for a period of 3(three) years basing on Annexure-1, but they were allowed to continue on deputation under the Corporation. Taking into account such continuance on deputation in the Corporation, when the employees so sent on deputation, raised a claim for their absorption in the Corporation before Opp. party No.3, Opp. Party No.2 vide letter dt.12.03.2010 under Annexure-2 was requested to take a decision on the same. 3.2. Taking into account such continuance on deputation in the Corporation, when the employees so sent on deputation, raised a claim for their absorption in the Corporation before Opp. party No.3, Opp. Party No.2 vide letter dt.12.03.2010 under Annexure-2 was requested to take a decision on the same. 3.2. It is also contended that while so working on deputation in the Corporation, Government in the Department of Finance vide resolution dt.28.06.2014 under Annexure-3, enhanced the date of superannuation of State Government employees from 58 years to 60 years. Such decision taken by the Government was also accepted by the Government in the Co-operation Department vide communication dt.26.09.2014 under Annexure-4 and further order passed by the Registrar of Co-Operative Soceities on 29.09.2014 under Annexure-5. 3.3. It is contended that since Petitioner originally belongs to Oil Odisha Cooperative Federation, in view of the decision taken by the Government in the Cooperation Department on 26.09.2014, Petitioner became eligible and entitled to continue till attaining the age of 60 years. 3.4. Not only that, decision taken by the Government in the Co-operation Department in enhancing the retirement age of employees working in different Cooperative institutions from 58 years to 60 years, was also communicated to various authorities by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Orissa vide his order dt.29.09.2014 under Annexure-5. 3.5. It is contended that even though Government decided to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years vide resolution dt.28.06.2014 under Annexure-3 and the same was also accepted by the Government in the Cooperation Department on 26.09.2014, but no such decision was taken by the Corporation in enhancing the age of superannuation. Accordingly, prior to retirement of the Petitioner on 31.03.2018, in terms of order dt.29.03.2018 under Annexure-8 series, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1434 of 2018 inter alia with a prayer to direct Opp. party No.3 to implement the decision of the Department and to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. 3.6. It is contended that on the face of such decision taken by the Government in the Finance Department on 28.06.2014 under Annexure-3 and by the Cooperation Department on 26.09.2014 under Annexure-4, since, no such decision was taken by the Corporation; Petitioner was made to retire on attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years vide Office order dt.29.03.2018. It is also contended that prior to such retirement of the Petitioner at the age of 58 years, Petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.2312 of 2008, inter alia with a prayer to direct the Corporation to absorb him in the establishment of the Corporation. 3.7. However, in absence of any decision being taken in allowing the Petitioner to continue till attaining the age of 60 years, Petitioner was made to retire at the age of 58 years on 31.03.2018. So challenging such retirement at the age of 58 years and with a prayer to allow them to continue till ataining the age of 60 years, the present Petitioner along with similarly situated employees, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15610 of 2018. 3.8. This Court vide order dt.05.04.2019 when directed the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner and other Petitioners, but their continuance till attaining the age of 60 years taking into account the communication issued on 26.09.2014 under Annexure-4 and order dt.29.09.2014 under Annexure-5, Registrar of Cooperative Societies vide order dt.22.06.2019 held that decision taken by the Registrar on 29.09.2014 under Annexure-5, is binding on the authorities of every cooperative institution, save and except, Orissa State Cooperative Bank, District Central Cooperative Bank and Primary Agriculture Cooperative Societies. 3.9. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on the face of such order passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 22.06.2019 under Annexure-9 series, one of the similarly situated employees working on deputation in the Corporation moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) 19541 of 2018. In the said Writ Petition, Petitioner therein challenged the advertisement issued by Corporation on 17.11.2018, wherein the Corporation instead of absorbing the Petitioner permanently in its establishment went for recruitment to the post of Assistant Manager. 3.10. However, the said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dt.13.08.2019 under Annexure-10 by directing the Corporation to enhance the age of retirement of such employees on deputation from Oil Odisha to 60 years in the light of the decision taken by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 22.06.2019 under Annexure-9 series. It is contended that W.P.(C) No.2312 of 2008 so filed by the Petitioner was also disposed of in the light of the order dt . 13.08.2019 so passed in W.P.(C) No.19541 of 2018. 3.11. It is contended that W.P.(C) No.2312 of 2008 so filed by the Petitioner was also disposed of in the light of the order dt . 13.08.2019 so passed in W.P.(C) No.19541 of 2018. 3.11. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 13.08.2019, when an application was filed by the Corporation for modification of the order, this Court vide order dt.14.11.2019 in I.A. No.13719 of 2019 vide Annexure-11, refused to modify order dt.13.08.2019. After such dismissal of the interim application, Petitioner who had already been superannuated on 31.03.2018, was allowed to continue, till he attained the age of 60 years vide order dt.02.02.2019. Petitioner accordingly continued till he attained the age of 60 years on 31.03.2020. 3.12. It is contended that since Petitioner for no fault of his own and because of the inaction of the Corporation in not extending the age of retirement to 60 years was kept out of employment for the period 1.4.2018 to 2.12.2019, he made a grievance under Annexure-12 on 10.02.2020, with a prayer to release the arrear dues for the period of 1.04.2018 to 1.12.2019. As such claim of the Petitioner was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.10017 of 2020. 3.13. This Court vide order dt.5.5.2020 under Annexure-13, when directed the Corporation to take a decision on the same, vide the impugned order dt.28.12.2020 under Annexure-14, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected inter alia on the ground that since Petitioner for the Period 1.4.2018 to 1.12.2019 has not worked in the Corporation, he is not eligible and entitled to get the salary for the period to 1.4.2018 to 1.12.2019. 3.14. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner though originally belongs to Oil Odisha, which is a cooperative organization in the State, but in terms of the order of deputation issued on 12.10.2001 under Annexure-1, he continued on deputation in the Corporation, till he was made to retire on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.03.2018, basing on order dt.29.03.2018, under Annexure-8 series. 3.15. 3.15. It is contended that by the time Petitioner was made to retire at the age of 58 years on 31.03.2018, not only Government had already taken a decision to enhance the age of superannuation of all State Government employees from 58 years to 60 years vide Resolution dt.28.06.2014, but also Government in the Cooperation Department vide letter dt.26.09.2014 under Annexure-4, while accepting the recommendation of the Government, enhanced the age of retirement of the employees working in different cooperative institutions from 58 years to 60 years. Such decision taken by the Government in the Cooperation Department on 26.09.2014 under Annexure-4, was acted upon by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, vide his order dt.29.09.2014 under Annexure-5. 3.16. Since Petitioner originally belongs to Oil Odisha, which is a Cooperative institution and by the time he was made to retire at the age of 58 years on 31.03.2018, Government in the Cooperation Department had already taken a decision to allow the employees to continue till attaining the age of 60 years, Petitioner should not have been retired at the age of 58 years on 31.03.2018 vide Office order dt.29.03.2018 of the Corporation, while on deputation. Petitioner prior to 31.03.2018 was also not repatriated to Oil Odisha. 3.17. It is however contended that, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19541 of 2018 under Annexure-10 and order dt.22.06.2019 passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Annexure-9 series, Petitioner though was re-instated in his services vide order dt.02.12.2019 of Opp. party No.2, but since for no fault of his own, Petitioner remained out of employment for the period 1.4.2018 to 1.12.2019, Petitioner claiming the benefit of arrear salary for the aforesaid period, made a representation under Annexure-12. But without proper appreciation of such claim of the Petitioner so made under Annexure-12 and the order passed by this Court under Annexure-13, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dt . 28.12.2020 under Annexure-14. 3.18. With regard to the entitlement of the Petitioner to get the benefit of arrear salary for the period 01.04.2018 to 1.12.2019, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court in the case of Premalata Panda Vs. State of Odisha and Another , disposed of on 14.07.2015. This Court in para-16 of the said judgment held as follows: 16. 3.18. With regard to the entitlement of the Petitioner to get the benefit of arrear salary for the period 01.04.2018 to 1.12.2019, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court in the case of Premalata Panda Vs. State of Odisha and Another , disposed of on 14.07.2015. This Court in para-16 of the said judgment held as follows: 16. Keeping in view the law laid down by the apex Court in Dayanand Chakrawarty (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the following consequential and pecuniary benefits should be allowed to different sets of CDA employees including the petitioner who were ordered to retire at the age of 58 years and this Court so directs. (a) The employees, who moved the Court of law irrespective of the fact whether interim order was passed in their favour or not, shall be entitled to full salary up to the age of 60 years and arrear salary shall be paid to them after adjusting the amount, if any, paid. (b) The employees, who never moved before any Court of law and had retired on attaining the age of superannuation, shall not be entitled for arrears of salary. However, they will be deemed to be continuing in service up to the age of 60 years. In their case, the CDA shall treat their age of superannuation as 60 years, fix the pay accordingly and re-fix the retirement benefits like pension, gratuity etc. On such calculation, they shall be entitled to arrears of retirement benefits after adjusting the amount already paid. (c) Needless to say that the arrears of salary and arrears of retirement benefits should be paid to such employees within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. (d) So far as the petitioner is concerned, since she had approached this Court before completion of 58 years of age and during pendency of the writ petition, she was made to retire on attaining the age of 58 years, this Court directs the opposite party no.2 to bring her back into service forthwith and allow her to continue till she attains the age of 60 years and grant all the consequential service and financial benefits as due and admissible to her in accordance with law. 3.19. 3.19. It is contended that on the face of the decision taken by the Government under Annexure-3 and the decision taken by the Cooperation Department under Annexure-4 and by the Registrar under Annexure-5 in allowing the employees working in different Cooperative institutions to continue till attaining the age of 60 years, Petitioner could not have been made to retire at the age of 58 years by the Corporation on 31.03.2018 vide order dt.29.03.2018 under Annexure-8 series while on deputation. 3.20. Not only that by the time Petitioner was so made to retire, his claim for absorption in the Corporation was also pending before this Court in W.P.(C) 2314 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.1343 of 2018. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of arrear salary for the period 1.4.2018 to 1.12.2019 is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Premalata Panda so cited (supra). In view of the said position, rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit vide the impugned order under Anexure-14 is not suitable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 4. Mr. K.C. Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. party-Corporation on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by the Corporation. It is contended that Petitioner is an employee of Oil Odisha and pursuant to Annexure-1 order dt.12.06.2001, Petitioner was sent on deputation to the Corporation. However, Petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years was made to retire w.e.f 31.03.2018 vide Order dt.29.03.2018 under Annexure-8 series. But taking into account the order passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 22.06.2019 under Annexure-9 series and order passed in W.P.(C) No.19541 of 2018 under Annexure-10, Petitioner was allowed to continue w.e.f 02.12.2019 till he attained the age of 60 years on 31.03.2020. Since Petitioner for the period 01.04.2018 to 1.12.2019 never discharged his duty, he is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of arrear salary which has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order. 4.1. Since Petitioner for the period 01.04.2018 to 1.12.2019 never discharged his duty, he is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of arrear salary which has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order. 4.1. It is also contended that since by the time, Petitioner was made to retire at the age of 58 years on 31.03.2018, no such claim to allow the Petitioner to continue till he attain the age of 60 years was pending before this Court, decision in the case of Premalata Panda so relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner cannot be made applicable to the Petitioner’s claim. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Corporation in rejecting the Petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order under Anenxure-14. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing under Oil Odisha, Petitioner along with similarly situated employees were deputed to work under the Corporation vide order dt.12.10.2001 under Anenxure-1. It is not disputed that basing on such order of deputation issued on 12.10.2001, Petitioner was allowed to continue on deputation in the Corporation and during such continuance, Writ Petition was also filed before this Court in W.P.(C)No.2312 of 2008, claiming regularization under the Corporation. 5.1. It is also found that during continuance of the Petitioner, Government vide resolution dt.28.06.2014 under Annexure-3 decided to enhance the age of retirement of all State Government employees from 58 years to 60 years. Such decision of the Government was also accepted by the Government in the Cooperation Deptt. vide communication dt.26.09.2014 under Annexure-4 and consequential order passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 29.09.2014 under Annexure-5. 5.2. However, on the face of such decision taken by the Cooperation Department, Petitioner even though originally belongs to Oil Odisha which is a Cooperative institution, was made to retire at the age of 58 years on 31.03.2018 vide order dt.29.03.2018 so issued by the Corporation under Annexure-8 series. Petitioner prior to 31.03.2018 was never repatriated to Oil Odisha also. 5.3. Prior to retirement of the Petitioner on 31.03.2018, Government in the Cooperation Department had already decided to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. On the face of such decision taken by the Government in the Cooperation Deptt. Petitioner prior to 31.03.2018 was never repatriated to Oil Odisha also. 5.3. Prior to retirement of the Petitioner on 31.03.2018, Government in the Cooperation Department had already decided to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. On the face of such decision taken by the Government in the Cooperation Deptt. so acted upon by the Registrar vide order dt.29.09.2014 under Annexure-5, Petitioner since was made to retire at the age of 58 years on 31.03.2018, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner’s claim is covered not only by the order passed by this Court in the case of Premalata Panda so cited supra, but also in view of the fact that prior to his retirement on 31.03.2018, Government in the Co- operation Department, had already taken the decision to enhance the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. 5.4. It is the view of this Court that on the face of the decision taken by the Government in the Cooperation Department under Annexure-4, so acted upon by the Registrar vide order dt.29.09.2014 under Annexure-5, Petitioner could not have been made to retire at the age of 58 years by the Corporation on 31.03.2018, while on deputation. 5.4. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned order dt.28.12.2020 under Annexure-14 is not sustainable in the eye law. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party-Corporation to pay the arrear salary of the Petitioner as due and admissible for the Period 01.04.2018 to 01.02.2019. Opp. Party No.2 is directed to release the arrear salary as due and admissible within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.