The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.7446 of 2021 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ……………… Hrudananda Behera …. Petitioner -versus- Chairman. OPTCL, Bhoinagar and Another …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : M/s. S.K. Dash, H. Moharana & For Opp. Parties: G.N. Rout, Advocate : M/s. B.P. Tripathy, Sr. Adv along with Mr. R. Achary, P. Pattnayak, S.C. Pradhan & N. Barik, Adv. PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 and Date of Judgment: 09.10.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging Office Order dt.09.10.2020 so issued by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-2. Petitioner in terms of the said order was prematurely retired w.e.f 09.10.2020. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was initially appointed as a Helper vide Office Order // 2 // dt.30.11.1995 so issued by the then Orissa State Electricity Board under Annexure-1 series. Petitioner while so continuing, was appointed as a Jr. Typist vide order of appointment issued on 30.03.1999 by the authorities of Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited also under Annexure-1 series. 2.1. Not only that, Petitioner vide Office order dt.06.11.2013 and 07.11.2015 under Annexure-1 series, was also promoted to the post of Sr. Typist and Head Typist. However, while continuing as Head Typist/ Computer Asst. Gr.-I (Highly Skilled-‘A’ category), Petitioner was made to retire prematurely w.e.f 09.10.2020 vide Office Order dt.09.10.2020 of Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-2, in terms of the provisions contained under clause-3(ii) of OSEB Employees Age of Retirement Regulation, 1979 (in short, “Regulation”) adopted by Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited (in short, “the Corporation”). 2.2. It is contended that while continuing in the establishment of the Corporation, not only Petitioner Page 2 of 28 // 3 // was promoted to different posts vide orders issued under Annexure-1 series, but also at no point of time, any adverse CCR was ever communicated to the Petitioner. However, Government in the G.A and P.G Department vide its Resolution dt.24.04.2019 under Annexure-3 when prescribed certain guidelines for Pre-mature Retirement of Government Servants to weed out Officers and employees of doubtful integrity or inefficiency from public service, to ensure efficiency in administration, such guideline issued by the G.A and P.G Department was accepted by the Corporation vide Office Order dt.11.12.2019 of Opp. Party No.2. 2.3. After adopting such guidelines issued by the Government in the G.A & P.G Department and as provided therein, Review Committee so constituted took up the issue with regard to continuance of the Petitioner in the establishment of the Corporation. The Committee vide its report under Annexure-4, however recommended to give pre-mature retirement to the Petitioner for the sake of public interest in terms of para-6(a)(b) and 10(a) of the guideline issued by the G.A Page 3 of 28 // 4 // & P.G Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-3 series. Para-6(a)(b) and Para-10(a) of the guideline reads as follows: 6. The criteria to be followed by the Committee in making their recommendations would be as follows: (a) Government employees whose integrity is doubtful, will be retired. (b) Government employees who are found to be ineffective will also be retired. The basic consideration in identifying such employees should be the fitness competence of the employees to continue in the post which he/she is holding. xxx xxx xxx 10. It will not be in public interest to retain an employee in service if- (a) he is clearly lacking in integrity, or 2.4. It is contended that basing on such recommendation made by the Committee, Petitioner was given pre-mature retirement vide the impugned order dt.09.10.2020 under Annexure-2. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that as provided in the Resolution issued by the Government in the G.A and P.G Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-3 series and as provided under Para-4 of the same, the case of Group-A and Group-B Officers on their completing 30 Page 4 of 28 // 5 // 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 31st December of a year shall be reviewed by the Review Committee constituted in pursuance of these instructions. Similarly, case of Group-C Officers and Group-D employees shall be reviewed on the 30th June & 31st December of the year by the relevant Review Committee. 2.5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since by the time the Review Committee vide Annexure-4 recommended to give pre-mature retirement to the Petitioner, Petitioner had already attained 53 years, in view of the stipulation contained in Para-4 of the Resolution, Petitioner’s case could not have been taken up for review and it could have been taken on his attaining the age of 55 years. Para 4 of the Resolution 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 Page 5 of 28 // 6 // by and the 31st December of a year shall be reviewed the Review Committees constituted in pursuance of these instructions. Similarly, the case 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. 2.6. It is contended that once a particular procedure has ben prescribed to get a thing done, it should be done as prescribed and not by any other mode. In support of such submission, reliance was placed on the following decisions: 1. Bernard Francis Joseph Vs. Government of Karnataka.
Legal Reasoning
2.Independent Sugar Corporation Limited Vs. Girish Sriram Jeneja 3.Checkmate Service Pvt. Commissioner of Income Tax. Ltd. Vs. 2.7. In the case of Bernard Francis Joseph, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-33 has held as under:- xxx xxx xxx It is settled law that where a statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act has to be done in that manner alone. xxx xxx xxx Page 6 of 28 // 7 // 2.8. In the case of Girish Sriram Jeneja, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-54 & 83 has held as under:- 54. xxx xxx xxx In the present interpretive exercise, one also needs to be mindful of the legal principle which says that where a statute requires one to do a certain thing in a certain manner, it must be done in that particular manner or not done at all. xxx xxx xxx 83. Whenever a statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to a specific consequence, it would be difficult to hold that the requirement is not mandatory and the specified consequence should not follow. xxx xxx xxx 2.9. In the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-49 has held as under:- 26. xxx xxx xxx It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. Xxx xxx xxx Page 7 of 28 // 8 // 2.10. It is also contended that the ground on which the Review Committee recommended to give pre-mature retirement to the Petitioner, relying on the provisions contained under Paragraph-6 (a)(b) and Paragraph- 10(a) of the Resolution dt.24.09.2019 is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner as Petitioner was never having any adverse CCR against him, save and except a minor punishment imposed in a Disciplinary Proceeding instituted in the year 2007 i.e. stoppage of one(1) increment for one(1) year without cumulative effect. 2.11. It is contended that after imposition of such a minor punishment on 13.08.2007, Petitioner since was given with the benefit of promotion vide Office Order dt.06.11.2013 to the rank of Sr. Typist/Computer Asst. Gr.-II (Highly Skilled “B” category) and to the rank of Head Typist/Computer Asst. Gr.-I (Highly Skilled “A” category) vide order dt.07.11.2015, in view of such promotion being given to the Petitioner, the ground on which the Committee took the decision to give pre- Page 8 of 28 // 9 // mature retirement to the Petitioner is not legally sustainable. 2.12. Once the Petitioner on the face of imposition of a minor punishment was given the benefit of promotion vide order dt.06.11.2013 and 07.11.2015 under Annexure-1 series and after getting such benefit of promotion, since at no point of time Petitioner was given any adverse CCR, there was no occasion on the part of the Review Committee to recommend for pre-mature retirement of the Petitioner. 2.13. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, 2001(3) SCC 314 clearly spelt out the law relating to compulsory retirement. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-11 of the said judgment held as follows: 11. The law relating to compulsory retirement has now crystallised into definite principles, which could be broadly summarised thus: (i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest. Page 9 of 28 // 10 // (ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution. (iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer. (iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order. (v) Even uncommunicated entries confidential record can also be consideration. in taken the into (vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable. (vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer. (viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure. 2.14. It is contended that since after disposal of the proceeding with imposition of the minor punishment in the year 2007, Petitioner at no point of time was communicated with any adverse CCR and taking into account his performance, he was given benefit of two promotion vide Office Order dt.06.11.2013 and 07.11.2015 under Annexure-1 series, there was no material available with the Review Committee to Page 10 of 28 // 11 // consider the eligibility of the Petitioner to continue further in service under the Corporation. 2.15. It is also contended that since by the time the Review Committee took up the issue and recommended for pre-mature retirement of the Petitioner, Petitioner had already attained the age of 53 years, decision taken by the Review Committee so implemented with issuance
Decision
of the impugned order is vitiated and not sustainable in the eye of law. Since the Corporation vide its Order dt.11.12.2019 under Annexure-3 series, accepted the guideline issued by the Government in the G.A & P.G Department on 24.09.2019, as provided under Para-4 of the guideline, performance of an employee can be assessed on his attaining the age of 50 and/or 55 years and not in between. Since by the time, the Review Committee took up the issue which is not disputed, Petitioner had already attained the age of 53 years, no such decision could have been taken and the Corporation could have taken such a decision only on his attaining the age of 55 years, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court as cited supra in the case of Bernard Page 11 of 28 // 12 // Francis Joseph, Girish Sriram Juneja and Checkmate Service P. Ltd. 2.16. It is further contended that as provided under Para-6(a) &(b) of the Resolution dt.24.09.2019, Petitioner’s integrity is not at all doubtful nor he was found ineffective at any point of time. But in the alternate Petitioner all through was given promotion at different point of time and the last such promotion was given vide order dt.07.11.2015. 2.17. It is also contended that Hon’ble Apex Court in a subsequent decision in the case of The State of Gujarat and Another Vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah 1999(1) SCC 529 clearly held as follows: The performance of a Govt. servant is reflected in the annual character roll entries and, therefore, one of the methods of discerning the efficiency, honesty of integrity of a Govt. servant is to look to his character roll entries for the whole tenure from the inception to the date on which decision for his compulsory retirement is taken. It is obvious that if the character roll is studded with adverse the entries or employee is poor and there is material also to cast doubts upon his integrity, such a Govt. servant cannot be said to be efficient. Efficiency is a bundle of sticks of personal assets, thickest of which is the stick of "Integrity". If this is missing the whole bundle would disperse. A Govt. servant has, therefore, to keep his belt tight. the overall categorization of Page 12 of 28 // 13 // 2.18. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force Vs. HC (GD Om Prakash, 2022 Live Law (SC) 128. Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph-15 of the said judgment has held as follows: “15. The entire service record is to be taken into consideration which would include the ACRs of the period prior to the promotion. The order of premature retirement is required o be passed on the basis of entire service records, through the recent reports would carry their own weight. 2.19. Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since by the time the Review Committee vide Annexure-4 considered the eligibility of the Petitioner for his further continuance under the Corporation, Petitioner had already attained the age of 53 years and there was no adverse CCR against him after getting the benefit of promotion vide order dt.07.11.2015, recommendation made by the Review Committee under Annexure-4 and its acceptance with issuance of the impugned order dt.09.10.2020 under Annexure-2, is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court, Page 13 of 28 // 14 // 3. Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned Sr. Counsel along with Mr. R. Achary, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 3.1. Though it is not disputed that Petitioner after his appointment on 30.11.1995 as a Helper was appointed as Jr. Typist vide order dt.30.03.1999 under Annexure-1 series, but also was given with the benefit of promotion after disposal of the proceeding with imposition of the minor punishment in the year 2007, vide order dt.06.11.2013 to the rank of Sr. Typist and vide order dt.07.11.2015 to the rank of Head Typist/Computer Asst.,Gr.-I (Highly Skilled-A category), but it is contended that after extension of such benefit of promotion, complaint was made against the Petitioner on 06.06.2016 vide Annexure-E/2 to the counter affidavit. 3.2. Not only that, in the CCR for the year 2016-17 i.e. 30.06.2016 to 31.03.2017, though the Reporting Officer did not indicate anything adverse against the Petitioner, Page 14 of 28 // 15 // but the Reviewing Authority gave his note that the Petitioner has a very negative attitude. Further allegation was made against the Petitioner by the Bidyut Retired Employees Association on 18.03.2019 under Annexure-G/2, with regard to the harassment caused to the retired employees by the Petitioner in his capacity as the Computer Asst. Grade-I. 3.3. It is contended that basing on such complaint made against the Petitioner under Annexure-E/2, the adverse CCR for the year 2016-17 vide Annexure-F/2 and complaint made by the Association under Annexure-G/2, case of the Petitioner was referred to the Committee for review of his performance in terms of the Office Memorandum issued by the G.A & P.G Department on 29.09.2019 so accepted by the Corporation vide order dt. 11.12.2019 under Annexure- 3 series. 3.4. It is contended that the Committee in its proceeding dt.12.02.2020 under Annexure-H/2, took a decision to retire the Petitioner prematurely and Page 15 of 28 // 16 // recommendation was accordingly made to give pre- mature retirement to the Petitioner. Basing on such recommendation of the Committee, Petitioner was given pre-mature retirement vide the impugned order dt.09.10.2020 under Annexure-2. 3.5. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that since after getting the benefit of promotion vide order dt.07.11.2015, complaints were made against the Petitioner with regard to his performance vide Annexure-E/2 and Annexure-G/2 and adverse remark was made in the CCR of the Petitioner for the period 2016-17 by the Reviewing Authority, taking into account such conduct of the Petitioner, it was decided to retire the Petitioner pre-maturely in public interest by accepting the recommendation of the Review Committee vide order dt.09.10.2020 under Annexure-2. 3.6. It is contended that taking into account the guidelines framed by the Government in the G.A & P.G Department in its new Resolution dt.24.09.2019 so Page 16 of 28 // 17 // accepted by the Corporation vide order dt.11.12.2019 under Annexure-3 series, since the Review Committee found that Petitioner’s case falls within the stipulations contained in Resolution dt.24.09.2019, his case was recommended by the Review Committee in its proceeding dt.12.02.2020 under Annexure-H/2. It is accordingly contended that since in terms of the guideline issued in Resolution dt.24.09.2019 and the guideline issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umedbhai M. Patel as cited supra, Petitioner’s continuance was found not conducive in public interest, he was rightly issued with the order of pre-mature retirement vide order dt.09.10.2020 under Annexure-2 and the same has been rightly issued which requires no interference. 3.7. It is also contended that in view of the provision contained under Para-4 of the Resolution dt.24.09.2019, there is no bar to take up the issue with regard to premature retirement at the age of 53, as such a review is permissible on attaining the age of 50 yeas and thereafter 55 years. Page 17 of 28 // 18 // 3.8. In support of his submission, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Corporation relied on the following decisions: 1. Central Industrial Security Force Vs. HC (GD) OM Prakash. 2. Ram Murti Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2020) 1 SCC 801 3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others Vs. Hari Kishan Verma, 2015 (13) SCC 156. 3.9. In the case of HC (GD) Om Prakash, Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph 14,15 & 16 held as follows: 14. Thus, we find that the High Court has not only misread the judgment of this Court in Baikuntha Nath Das but wrongly applied the principles laid down therein. The adverse remarks can be taken into consideration as mentioned in the number of judgments mentioned satisfactory and in fact below average reports as well. 15. The entire service record is to be taken into consideration which would include the ACRs of the period prior to the promotion. The order of premature retirement is required to be passed on the basis of entire service records, though the recent reports would carry their own weight. 16. In view of the said fact, we find that the order of the High Court setting aside the order of premature retirement is clearly is. set aside. The unsustainable and Page 18 of 28 // 19 // appeal is allowed. The writ petition thus stands dismissed. 3.10. In the case of Ram Murti Yadav, Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph-6 held as follows: retirement based on 6. The service records of the appellant have been examined by the Screening Committee, the Full Court as also by the Division Bench of the High Court. The scope for judicial review of an order of the compulsory subjective satisfaction of the employer is extremely narrow and restricted. Only if it is found to be based on arbitrary or capricious grounds. vitiated by mala fides, overlooks relevant materials, could there be limited scope for interference. The court, in judicial review, cannot sit in judgment over the same as an appellate authority. Principles of natural justice have no application in a case of compulsory retirement. 3.11. In the case of Hari Kishan Verma, Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph 13 to 16 held as follows: 13. Prior to dwelling upon the issue whether the order passed in this case is stigmatic or not, we think it appropriate to deal with the contention whether the past entries prior to the conferment of benefit of promotion have lost their significance and hence, the competent authority could not have b relied upon the same while passing an order of compulsory retirement. There is no cavil over the fact that the respondent was extended the benefit of promotion to the higher post. The issue that has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that after the promotion the earlier adverse entries totally lost their signification. To appreciate it the said submission, we appropriate to refer to certain authorities in the field. think 14. In State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Das a three- Judge Bench has emphatically held that the object behind compulsory retirement is public interest and, Page 19 of 28 // 20 // therefore, even if an employee has been subsequently promoted. the previous entries do not melt into insignificance. To quote: (SCC pp. 333-34, para 7) prudent man would "7.... Merely because a promotion has been given even after adverse entries were made, cannot be a ground to note that compulsory retirement of the government servant could not be ordered. The evidence does not become inadmissible or irrelevant as opined by the Tribunal. What would be relevant is whether upon that state of record as a reasonable the Government or competent officer reach that decision. We find that self-same material after promotion may not be taken into further consideration only that material promotion, to undoubtedly would be available the Government overall the expediency or necessity to continue the government servant in service after he attained the required length of service or qualified period of service for pension." to deny him if any. But consider to 15. The aforesaid dictum has been approved and followed in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel, wherein emphasis has been laid on the factum that the entire service record of the government servant is to be examined. Same principle has also been followed in another three-Judge Bench decision in Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand. Slightly recently a Division Bench in Rajasthan SRTC v. Babu Lal Jangir, after discussing number of authorities, has held thus: (SCC pp. 563-64, paras 22-23) the adverse entries prior "22. It clearly follows from the above that the clarification given by two-Judge Bench judgment in Badrinath v. State of T.N. is not correct and the observations of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh to the effect that the promotion or crossing o efficiency bar or picking up higher rank are not wiped off and can be taken into account while considering the overall performance of the employee when it comes to the consideration of case of that employe for premature retirement. to Page 20 of 28 // 21 // 23. The principle of law which is clarified and stands crystallise after the judgment in Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand is the after the promotion of an employee the adverse entries prior thereto would have no relevance and can be treated as wiped off when the case of the government employee is to be considered further promotion. for However, this washed-off theory will have no application when the case of an employee is being assessed to determine whether he is fit to t retained in service or requires to be given compulsory retirement. Th rationale given is that since such an assessment is based on entire service record’, there is no question of not taking into consideration the earlier old adverse entries or record of the old period. We may hasten add that while such a record can be taken into consideration, at the same time, the service record of the immediate past period will have to given due credence and weightage. For example, as against some old adverse entries where the immediate past record shows exempla performance, ignoring such a record of recent past and acting only on t basis of old adverse entries, to retire a person will be a clear example arbitrary exercise of power. However, if old record pertains to integrity a person then that may be sufficient to justify the order of premature retirement of the government servant. 16. In view of the aforesaid statement of law, there can be no iota doubt that the entire record can be scrutinized by the employer to adjudge justification of continuance of the employee after reaching a particular age contemplated in the Regulations. This being the position of law, we have hesitation in holding that the submission of Ms Rekha Palli is sans substance. 4. To the submission made by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Corporation, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission basing on the stand taken in the rejoinder affidavit. Page 21 of 28 // 22 // 4.1. It is contended that in the CCR for the year 2016- 17 i.e. for the period 30.06.2016 to 31.03.2017, even though the Reporting Officer did not indicate any thing adverse, but the Reviewing Officer only gave an opinion that Petitioner has a very negative attitude. In the CCR for the year 2017-18 for the period 05.05.2017 to 31.07.2017, there is no adverse remark. But the Review Committee take note of the entries made in the CCR for the year 2017-2018 as an adverse entry while considering the issue. It is also contended that the entry made by the Reviewing Officer in the CCR for the year 2016-17 was never communicated to the Petitioner. It is accordingly contended that the entries made in the CCR for the period 2016-17 cannot be taken as an adverse CCR. 5.2. It is further contended that since save and except the CCR for the year 2016-17, there was no other adverse CCR against the Petitioner by the time the Committee recommended to retire the Petitioner prematurely, in view of the decision in the case of HC (GD) Om Prakash as cited supra, the order of pre- Page 22 of 28 // 23 // mature retirement passed against the Petitioner on 09.10.2020 under Annexure-2, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was initially appointed as a Helper by the then Odisha State Electricity Board Vide Office Order dt.30.11.1995 under Anexure-1 series. Subsequently, vide order dt.30.09.1999 under Annexure-1 series, Petitioner was appointed as against the post of Jr. Asst. by the authorities of Grid Corporation of Orissa. 6.1. Not only that, on the face of the minor punishment imposed in the Disciplinary Proceeding on 13.08.2007, Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Sr. Typist by the Corporation vide Order dt.06.11.2013 and to the rank of Head Typist/Computer Asst. Grade-I (Highly Skilled-A category) vide Office Order dt.07.11.2015 under Annexure-1 series. 6.2. As found from the record, after extension of such benefit to the rank of Computer Asst. Gr.-I vide order Page 23 of 28 // 24 // dt.07.11.2015 and after acceptance of the Resolution issued by the G.A & P.G Department on 24.09.2019 by the Corporation vide its order dt.11.12.2019 under Annexure-3 series, the Review Committee in its proceeding dt.12.02.2020 under Annexure-H/2, recommended to give pre-mature retirement to the Petitioner. As found from the said report available under Annexure-H/2, the Committee taking into account the complaint made under Annexure-G/2 and the CCR for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 under Annexure-F/2, recommended the Corporation to give pre-mature retirement to the Petitioner. 6.3. As found from the Resolution issued by the G.A and P.G Department on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-3 series, the employer here in to the case, the Corporation, was competent to review the performance of its employees both Group-A & B & Group-C & D, on completion of 30 years of qualifying service or attaining the age of 50 years and/or 55 years. Page 24 of 28 // 25 // 6.4. Taking into account the appointment of the Petitioner in the year 1995, Petitioner was due to attain the qualifying service of 30 years in the year 2025. Taking into account the date of birth of the Petitioner, Petitioner attained the age of 50 years in the year 2017. But as found, the Review Committee in its proceeding dt.12.02.2020 under Annexure-H/2, when recommended the case of the Petitioner for his pre- mature retirement, Petitioner had already attained the age of 53 years. 6.5. In view of the stipulation contained in para-4 of Resolution dt.24.09.2019, by the time the Review Committee recommended to give pre-mature retirement to the Petitioner, Petitioner had already attained the age of 53 years. Taking into account the nature of stipulation contained in para-4 of the Resolution dt.24.09.2019 and the decision in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph, Girish Sriram Juneja and Checkmate Service P. Ltd as cited supra , it is the view of this Court that Petitioner’s case could have been Page 25 of 28 // 26 // taken up by the Review Committee on his attaining the age of 55 years, but not at the age of 53 years. 6.6. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that by the time the Review Committee took up the issue, Petitioner since had already attained 53 years, such review could have been taken up on his attaining the age of 55 years. Since by the time the Review Committee took the decision in its proceeding dt.12.02.2020 under Annexure-H/2, Petitioner had already attained the age of 53 years, his case could not have been taken up by the Review Committee with the recommendation so made. 6.7. It is also the view of this Court that on the face of the minor punishment imposed in the year 2007, Petitioner was given two successive promotion by the Corporation vide order dt.06.11.2013 and 07.11.2015 under Annexure-1 series. The adverse entry made by the Reviewing Authority in the CCR for the period 2016- 17 has also not been communicated to the Petitioner and no document has been filed in that regard. Page 26 of 28 // 27 // 6.8. Not only that, in view of the decision in the case of HC (GD) Om Prakash as cited supra, since save and except the entries made in the CCR for the period 2016- 2017, no other adverse CCR was there against the Petitioner, taking into account the entire service record of the Petitioner, the Committee could not have recommended for his pre-mature retirement vide Annexure-H/2 so accepted by the Corporation with issuance of the impugned order on 09.10.2020 under Annexure-2. The complaints made against the Petitioner vide Annexure-E/2 & G/2 cannot be held that further continuance of the Petitioner is against public interest. 6.9. In view of the aforesaid analysis and placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Umedbhai M. Patel and Suryakant Chunilal Shah as well as HC (GD) Om Prakash, it is the view of this Court that there was no ground to give pre-mature retirement to the Petitioner and that too at the age of 53 years. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.09.10.2020 so issued by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-2. While Page 27 of 28 // 28 // quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to re-instate the Petitioner in his services. 6.10. Since it is not disputed that after such pre-mature retirement vide order dt.09.10.2020, Petitioner has not been extended with any retirement benefits, the break period of service be regularized with extension of 50% of the benefits as due and admissible and the break period be treated as qualifying service for other purposes. This Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 6.11. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 9th October, 2025/sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 09-Oct-2025 14:30:37 Page 28 of 28