The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 12438 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Ratnakar Sethy …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Ms. P. Rath, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. S. Prusty, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Mr. C.K. Pradhan Addl. Govt. Advocate For Opp. Parties : PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 25.11.2025 & Date of Judgment: 25.11.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Ms. P. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Ms. S. Prusty, learned counsel and Mr. C.K. // 2 // Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.15.03.2022 so issued under Annexure-1. Vide the said order Petitioner was given premature retirement in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 71(a) of the Odisha Service Code (in short Code). 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner entered into service as an Inspector in the Civil Supplies Department on 07.10.1994. While so continuing, Petitioner was promoted to the post of Asst. Civil Supply Officer on 01.01.2007. It is further contended that while so continuing Petitioner though was implicated in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 dtd.24.05.2012, but in the said criminal case Petitioner was never charge sheeted so reflected in the communication dtd.16.11.2019 available under Annexure-12. 4.1. It is also contended that Petitioner while so continuing in his service, he was promoted to the post of Addl. Civil Supply Officer vide order dtd.21.05.2022. But subsequently, Petitioner when was implicated in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 dtd.03.02.2022, Page 2 of 9 // 3 // Petitioner’s case was referred to the Review Committee for giving him premature retirement in terms of the provsions contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code. The Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.11.02.2022 under Annexure-11 series recommended the Govt.- Opp. Party No. 1 to give premature retirement to the Petitioner, which was acted upon by the Govt. with issuance of the impugned order dtd.15.03.2022 under Annexure-1. 4.2. It is the main contention of the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that by the time Petitioner’s case was referred to the Review Committee, since he had already attained the age of 50 years, in terms of the guideline issued by the Govt. on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-2, Petitioner’s claim could not have been considered by the Review Committee with the recommendation made under Annexure-11 series and issuance of the impugned order in giving premature retirement to the Petitioner vide the impugned order under Annexure-1. 4.3. In support of his aforesaid submission, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court so passed on 28.10.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 14146 of 2022 (Ratnakar Mallick Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.). This Court in Para 3.13 and 6.3 has held as follows:- Page 3 of 9 // 4 // “3.13. It is contended that since by the time petitioner’s name was referred vide letter dated 10.11.2021 and the Review Committee recommended to give Premature Retirement to petitioner in its Proceeding dated 15.03.2022 under Annexure-11, petitioner had already crossed the age of 50 years, his case could not have been taken up by the Review Committee with such recommendation. It is contended that once a thing has been prescribed to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in that manner or not at all. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions: 1. Bernard Francis Joseph Vs. Government of Karnataka. 2. Independent Sugar Corporation Limited Vs. Girish Sriram Jeneja 3.Checkmate Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. xxx xxx xxx 6.3. It is also found that by the time the Review Committee took the decision in recommending Premature Retirement to the petitioner on 15.03.2022 under Annexure-11, petitioner since had completed the age of 50 years, in view of the provisions contained under Para-4 read with Para-7 of the Resolution dated 24.09.2019 under Annexure-10, petitioner’s case could not have been taken up by the Review Committee. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited supra in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph, Girish Sriram Juneja and Checkmate Service P. Ltd., it is the view Page 4 of 9 // 5 // of this Court that case of the petitioner could not have been taken up by the Review Committee. 4.4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment it is contended that since by the time Petitioner’s case was considered by the Review Committee to give premature retirement in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code, Petitioner had already attained the age of 50 years, his case could not have been recommended by the Review Committee, with passing of the impugned order under Annexure-1. 4.5. It is also contended that there was no material available before the Review Committee, save and except the implication of the Petitioner in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 dt.03.02.2022. It is
Decision
accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by the Opp. Parties. It is contended that Petitioner when was in service, he was initially implicated in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 dtd.24.05.2012. Subsequently, Petitioner was also implicated in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 dtd.03.02.2022. In view of the Page 5 of 9 // 6 // guideline issued by the Govt. on 24.09.2019 under Annexure-2 and since Petitioner was found involved in two vigilance cases, his case was referred to the Review Committee. The Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.15.03.2022 under Annexure-11 found the further continuance of the Petitioner not in public interest and recommended to give premature retirement to the Petitioner. The recommendation so made was acted upon with passing of the impugned order under Annexure-1 by Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity has been committed in giving premature retirement to the Petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner entered into service as an Inspector of Civil Supplies on 07.10.1994. While so continuing, he was promoted to the post of Asst. Civil Supply Officer on 01.01.2007. Subsequently, Petitioner was also promoted to the post of Addl. Civil Supply Officer vide order dtd.31.05.2020. Even though Petitioner was implicated in Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 dtd.24.05.2012, but as found from Annexure-12 series, he was not charge sheeted in the said proceeding. However, after his implication in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Page 6 of 9 // 7 // Case No. 9 dtd.03.02.2022, Petitioner’s name was forwarded to the Review Committee to give him premature retirement in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code. Basing on the recommendation made by the Review Committee in its proceeding dtd.11.02.2022 under Annexure-11 series, Petitioner was given premature retirement vide the impugned order dt.15.03.2022 under Annexure-1. 6.1. Since it is not disputed that by the time Petitioner’s claim was referred to the Review Committee, Petitioner had already attained the age of 50 years, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ratnakar Mallick as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that Petitioner’s name could not have been recommended by the Review Committee, as the same is contrary to the guideline issued by the Govt. under Annexure-2. Not only that this Court is also of the view that there were no sufficient materials available before the Review Committee to recommend the Govt. to give premature retirement to the Petitioner. 6.2. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court while quashing order dt.15.03.2022 under Annexure-1, directs Page 7 of 9 // 8 // Opp. Party No. 1 to reinstate him by passing an appropriate order in that regard within a period of 2 (two) months hence. 6.3. Since it is not disputed that Petitioner after being given premature retirement has only been sanctioned with provisional pension, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to regularize the break period of service in accordance with law, but on notional basis. However, the benefit extended in shape of provisional pension shall not be refunded by the Petitioner. 6.4. However, quashing of the order under Annexure-1 will not debar Opp. Party No. 1 to proceed against the Petitioner in accordance with law, if he is involved in any manner detrimental to the interest of the Govt.. But before parting with this case, it is the view of this Court that instead of taking step to give premature retirement to an employee in terms of the provision contained under Rule 71(a) of the Code, the concerned employee should be dealt with initiation of appropriate proceeding as provided under OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. This Court is of such view as while giving premature retirement to an employee, he is becoming entitled to get all the post retiral benefits including pension, which is not in the better interest of the Govt. nor it is in public interest. Page 8 of 9 // 9 // 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 25th November, 2025/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Nov-2025 18:15:17 Page 9 of 9