Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Orissa · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8103 (ORI)

NILAKANTHA BEHERA v. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TPCODL, BBSR

WP(C)/10367/2026 · 2026-05-01

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 10367 of 2026 Nilakantha Behera & Ors. ..... Petitioners Mr. S.K. Nayak (2), Adv. -versus- The Chief Executive Officer, TPCODL, BBSR & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. L.K. Maharana, Adv. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 01.05.2026 Order No. 03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Even though the Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the prayer that Petitioners are aggrieved by the stipulation inserted by virtue of amendment to Rule 7 of the Odisha Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Amendment Rules, 2015, by which the word 12 years earlier reflected in Rule 7 was made 15 years for restoration of the commuted value of pension, but it is found that while extending the benefit of commuted value of pension vide orders issued by the Corporation as well as by TATA Power, it was clearly indicated in those orders that the original pension will be restored after 15 years. 4. In view of such stipulation contained in the order allowing commuted value of pension, it is the view of this Court that Petitioners are no way aggrieved by the amendment carried to Rule 7 of the Rules. If Petitioners are of the view that commuted value of pension is Page 2 of 2. required to be restored after 12 years and not after 15 years, then order allowing such benefit of commuted pension has to be challenged. 5. Since in the present writ petition, order allowing commuted pension is not under challenge, it is the view of this Court that the writ petition with the challenge as made is not entertainable. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioners to challenge the original order passed by the Corporation and/or TPCODL/TPNODL, allowing commuted value of pension in favour of the Petitioners, whereby they are aggrieved so far as restoration of the original Petition is concerned. 7. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti