Orissa High Court
Case Details
AFR ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W.A. NO. 1413 OF 2022 In the matter of an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court read with Article 4 of Orissa High Court Order, 1948. --------------- Board of Secondary Education, Odisha ..… Appellant State of Odisha and others ….. Respondents -Versus- For Appellant : Mr. S.S. Rao, Senior Advocate For Respondents : Mr. R.N. Mishra, Addl. Government Advocate [Respondent Nos.1 & 2] Mr. N.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate, along with M/s. N.K. Mishra, A.K. Ray, P. Dash and A. Mishra, Advocates [Respondent No.3] P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R.SARANGI AND THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing: 13.11.2023 ::Date of Judgment: 21.11.2023 DR. B.R. SARANGI, ACJ The Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, which was opposite party no.3 in W.P.(C) No. 10 Page 1 of 32 of 2019, has filed this writ appeal seeking to quash the judgment dated 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the said writ petition filed by respondent no.3 and directing the appellant to pay the pensionary benefit as claimed by respondent no.3. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the Board of Secondary Education is a body corporate formed under Section 3 of the Odisha Secondary Education Act, 1952 and established for the purpose of regulating, controlling, developing Secondary Education in the State. It is an examining body authorized to prescribe courses of institutions, preparation of syllabus, to make regulations for imposing penalties for acts of misconduct of students, teachers, examiners, examinees, printers of text books or question papers and of persons connected with the examination of the Board. As such, the appellant is an autonomous body and it runs the administration through a set of regulations, governing the administration of the Board and stipulating modalities of conducting the examinations, recognition of the institutions upon enquiry Page 2 of 32 about the standards of the education imparting systems, infrastructure, appointment of staff and teachers and also service conditions of its employees, besides several other aspects. The regulations were framed pursuant to power conferred on it under Section 21(i) of the Odisha Secondary Education Act, 1952. The provision of Section 21(iii) puts a restriction on the Board to amend the regulations without approval of the State Government. By way of amendment introducing pension to the employees, from CPF, which was earlier followed, service conditions of its employees, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (Amendment) Regulations, 1997 came into force. Regulation 22 determines the qualifying service of the employees for the purpose of calculation of pension. 2.1. Respondent no. 3 filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 10 of 2019 seeking to quash the decision of the appellant dated 29.09.2018, by which his claim for differential pension by calculating the past service rendered by him was rejected. The case of respondent no.3 was that he joined as Assistant Teacher in Kundukela Page 3 of 32 Government ME, School, Sundargarh on 31.7.1953; joined as S.I. of Schools on 09.04.1954; Assistant Teacher in Government High School, Biramitrapur on 16.08.1960 and transferred to Uditnagar High School, Rourkela on 06.07.1967. He thereafter joined in G.C. High School, Rairakhol. While working there, on 01.3.1976 he was sent to the Board of Secondary Education on deputation, to work as Expert in Teaching Odia. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.1991. Thereby, he had rendered service for 40 years and thus is entitled to pension calculating the entire period of service in other organizations. 2.2. The further case of the respondent no. 3 was that his representation to grant differential pension, as while granting pension his entire period of past service was not taken into account. His representation having not been considered, he filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 10929 of
Decision
17, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.07.2017 by directing the appellant to dispose of the representation. In compliance to the order dated 03.07.2017 passed by this Page 4 of 32 Court, the representation filed by respondent no.3 was considered and the same was turned down vide letter dated 29.9.2018. Therefore, respondent no.3 filed W.P.(C) No. 10 of 2019 before this Court. 2.3 Pursuant to the notice issued to the appellant, the appellant filed a counter affidavit contending therein that respondent no.3 is not entitled to the relief claimed by him. Respondent no. 3 was one of the applicants responding to the advertisement calling upon appointment to the post of expert in teaching. The advertisement dated 01.07.1975 contained a specific condition that in the event an applicant is in Government service, has to pay leave salary and pension contribution. One Bansidhar Rath, a teacher serving in higher secondary school was selected and appointed on 29.09.1975. As he did not join, respondent no.3, who was second in the merit list, was selected and an appointment order dated 17.01.1976 was issued. Accordingly, vide letter dated 17.02.1976, Board requested the Joint Director Public Instruction (Schools) to send the petitioner on deputation. In response to the same, Page 5 of 32 the Joint Director Public Instruction wrote to Inspector of Schools, Sambalpur Circle to relieve respondent no.3, marking a copy to the Board, as to if Board is willing to take him under usual conditions of foreign service under Rule-212 of Orissa Service Code. Upon Board’s consent, respondent no.3 was relieved on 01.03.1976 vide Office Order No. 118 of the Head Master of G.C. High School, Rairakhol, under whom he was serving. It is only therefore respondent no. 3 joined on 02.03.1976 as Expert in Odia on deputation, which continued from time to time till 31.07.1981. Vide letter dated 25.09.1981, the Office of Accountant General called upon Board to deposit leave salary and pension contribution in the Treasury for the entire period of foreign service of 5 years 5 months i.e., from 02.03.1976 to 31.07.1981. He was thereafter absorbed in the Boards services with effect from 01.08.1981, as per letter dated 27.12.1982. Leave salary and pension contribution was deposited in the special Treasury. Thereafter, respondent no.3 was promoted as Academic Officer Class-I (JB) on 25.09.1990 and retired on Page 6 of 32 attaining the age of Superannuation of 60 years on 31.08.1993. The respondent no.3 was paid pension for the entire period of his service in Board from 01.08.1981 to 31.08.1993 (10 years 1 month) computing the qualifying service up to the age of 58 years and was also paid all retiral benefits including unutilized leave salary of Rs.41,173/- vide Memo dated 18.04.1994; death-cum- retirement gratuity of Rs. 19,800/-, G.I.S amounting to Rs. 1800/- and vide Memo dated 29.01.1994, Rs.450/- refund of his own contribution of Rs.17,926/-. Thereby, it was specifically contended that respondent no.3 joined in the Board service only on 01.08.1981 and served for 10 years 1 month and, therefore, he was entitled to pension and accordingly the pension was calculated and paid. 2.4. Having regard to the aforementioned pleadings, the learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 20.09.2022, allowed the writ petition filed by respondent no. 3 holding that respondent no.3 is entitled to get pension as claimed by him, taking note of the cases of similarly situated employees. Hence, this writ appeal. Page 7 of 32 3. Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant urged before this Court that the claim of respondent no.3 about counting past service for calculating the pension cannot be sustained, as he joined Board’s Service only on 01.08.1981 and retired on 31.08.1993. His pension, as admissible up to the age of qualifying service of 58 years, was disbursed and, thereby, all retiral benefits were also paid. It is also contended that during the period of continuing in Government Service and on deputation with the Board, from 02.03.1976 to 31.07.1981, the appellant also deposited its contribution in Government Treasury, as required under the guidelines of employees on deputation joining from foreign service. 3.1. He further contended that under Rule-44 (1)(iii) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, a Government Servant with Contributory Provident Fund (C.P.F) benefits on permanent absorption in autonomous body, could opt to come under pension scheme, foregoing Government’s share in contribution in Provident Fund contribution within one year from the date of his Page 8 of 32 absorption in the autonomous body. Respondent no.3, who was absorbed on 01.08.1981, had not opted in accordance with the said rule. Therefore, he is entitled to and shall receive Contributory Provident Fund for the period he served in Government from the Government and not from the Board. It is further contended that respondent no.3 had claimed and represented to Director Secondary Education on 22.07.1994 for sanction of pension for the period of 28 years i.e., from 1953 to 1981. He pursued such claim from the Government by approaching the State Administrative Tribunal. It is also contended that the claim of past services also could not be established by respondent no. 3, as his claim that his services in other institutions earlier was not pensionable one. As such, there was inordinate delay in filing the case. Consequentially, it is contended that learned Single Judge has committed gross error by allowing the benefit claimed by respondent no.3, which cannot be sustained in the eye of law and thereby, the same is to be quashed. Page 9 of 32 4. Mr. R.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 contended that since the claim of respondent no.3 is as against the appellant, the State has no role to play. It is further contended that there is inter se dispute between appellant and respondent no.3 so far as grant of full pension is concerned and, as such, the same has already been granted by the learned Single Judge and is to be adjudicated in the present appeal. 5. Mr. Narendra Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.3, while reiterating the factual matrix, emphatically submitted that respondent no. 3 joined as Assistant Teacher in Kundukela Government M.E. School and subsequently worked as S.I. of Schools on 09.04.1954 and Assistant Teacher in Government High School, Biramitrapur on 16.08.1960 and Uditnagar High School on 06.07.1967. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the appellant, respondent no.3 was issued with an appointment order and accordingly joined the Board of Page 10 of 32 Secondary Education as Expert in Teaching Odia on 02.03.1976 following due transition of service from Government on deputation. Respondent no. 3 opted for Board’s service and he was permanently absorbed by the Board on 01.08.1981. The employees of the Board became entitled to pension as per BSE Orissa (Amendment) Regulations, 1997 with retrospective effect from 01.01.1982. Respondent no. 3 retired from Board’s services on reaching 60 years of age. As such, he having rendered 40 years of continuous service, including the past service, is eligible for full pension keeping in view Regulation 22 of BSE Odisha (Amendment) Regulations, 1997. Respondent no. 3 was allowed to come over to the Pension Scheme of the Board from 20.12.1997 to 12.08.1999, pursuant to the Board’s letter dated 28.06.2005 to the Government regarding consent of previous employer taken before permanent absorption of Respondent no. 3. It is further contended that the representation of Smt. Bishnupriya Dei, Retd. Asst. Teacher of the Secondary Board School was rejected on Page 11 of 32 22.08.2011 on the ground of the decision in W.P.(C) No. 18242 of 2008 (Rabindranath Nayak). Therefore, the grievance of the respondent no.3, which was filed by way of representation, was also rejected vide order dated 14.09.2011 in the same line as that of Smt. Bishnupriya Dei. Challenging the same, respondent no.3 filed W.P.(C) No.10929 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.07.2017 with a direction to the appellant to take decision on the respondent no.3’s representation within three months. Accordingly, respondent no. 3 moved the appellant on 17.07.2017 in pursuance of the above direction of this Court. The same having not been complied with, respondent no.3 filed CONTC No. 15 of 2018, which was disposed of on 02.07.2018 directing the appellant to comply the same within a period of three months. But the same was rejected on 29.09.2018 by a bald and non- speaking order, which was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge, after due adjudication, directed to extend the benefit in favour of respondent no.3. Page 12 of 32 5.1. It is further contended that respondent no.3 has been paid pension for the period from 01.08.1981 to 31.08.1993, during which he served the Board and which is the qualifying service for pension. It is also contended that in respect of similarly situated employees, full pension was granted by the appellant considering the past service rendered, but denial of such legitimate benefit to respondent no.3 has invoked the principle of blowing hot and cold or approbation and reprobation at the same time. Regulation 22 of the BSE Orissa (Amendment) Regulations, 1997 clearly supports the case of respondent no.3 particularly keeping in view Regulation 22 (b) (e) and (f) as specifically held in the case of Rama Narayan Padhy v. State of Orissa (2006) 1 OLR 293. Thereby, it is contended that the learned Single Judge is well justified in passing the order and extending the full pension in favour of respondent no.3, which does not warrant interference by this Court at this stage. 6. This Court heard Mr. S.S. Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, Mr. R.N. Mishra, Page 13 of 32 learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Narendra Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. N.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 by hybrid mode, and perused the record. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with their consent, the writ appeal is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission 7. For a just and proper adjudication of the case in hand, Rule 44 (1) (iii) of the Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992 is quoted hereunder:- ““44. Pension absorption in or under Autonomous bodies. (1) (i) Xxx xxx xxx (ii) Xxx xxx xxx (iii) A Government servant with Contributory Provident Fund benefits on permanent absorption in an autonomous body will have the option either to receive Contributory Provident Fund benefits which have accrued to him from the Government and Start his service afresh in that body or choose in Government as to count service rendered qualifying service for pension in the autonomous body by in contributory Provident Fund contributions with interest which will be paid to the concerned autonomous body by the concerned Government Department. The option shall be exercised within foregoing Government's share Page 14 of 32 one year from the date of such absorption. If no option is exercised within the stipulated period, employee shall be deemed to have opted to receive contributory Provident Fund benefit. The option once exercised shall be final.” 8. There was also an amendment to the Regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha called as the Board of Secondary Education Odisha (Amendment) Regulations, 1997 inserting a new Section, i.e., Section-IV, in Chapter XIII. Section IV contains Regulations 20 to 22, which are as follows:- “20. (1) Every employee retiring on or after the 1st day of January, 1982 shall be entitled either to the benefit of the pension including commutation of pension, gratuity and family pension as applicable to the State Government employees under the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 and the Orissa Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1993 or to the benefit of contributory provident-cum-gratuity provided in this chapter, as he may opt. (2) In the case of employees opting or deemed to have opted for the pension scheme the amount contribution by the Board to their contributory Provident Fund together with interest accrued thereon till the date of their receiving pension shall be credited to the pension fund of the Board. (3) The employees of the Board under the pension scheme shall subscribe to the General Provident Fund Account, which shall be opened and operated in accordance with the provisions contained in the General Provident Fund, Orissa Rules. 21. Notwithstanding the age of superannuation, the period of qualifying service of employees other than the class IV employees up to the time when Page 15 of 32 they complete 58 years of age shall be taken into consideration to determine the quantum of their pension, family pension or commutation of pension. In the case of class IV employees the period of service up to the age of superannuation shall be reckoned for the purpose. 22. The period of qualifying service rendered by an employee under any of the following institutions shall count for the purpose of pension: (a) Central Government (b) State Government (c) Any Indian University (d) Any college affiliated to any University of the state and aided by the State Government. (e) Any Educational Institution recognized by the Board and/ or any Research Institutions aided by the State/Central Government and (f) The previous service in any institution on the basis of which such persons have been appointed in the Board.” 9. Admittedly, the Board had no pension Rules of its own and its employees were availing the benefits of contributory provident fund and gratuity till 1997. When the Government of Odisha brought an amendment to the Regulations, i.e., Board of Secondary Education Orissa (Amendment) Regulations, 1997, as indicated above, which came into force on 07.05.1997, inserting Section IV to Chapter-XIII, the provisions incorporated in the said Regulations, as quoted above, would show that Regulation 20(1) provides that every employee retiring on or after the Page 16 of 32 1st day of January, 1982 shall be entitled either to the benefit of the pension as applicable to the State Government employees or to the benefit of contributory provident-cum-gratuity provided in the said Chapter, as he may opt. Regulation 20(2) provides that in case of employees opting for pension scheme, the amount contributed by the Board to their contributory Provident Fund together with interest shall be credited to the pension fund of the Board. 10. As it reveals, respondent no.3 had joined Board of Secondary Education as Expert in Teaching Odia on 02.03.1976 on deputation, which continued from time to time till 31.07.1981. On 25.09.1981, the Office of the Accountant General called upon Board to deposit leave salary and pension contribution of respondent no.3 in the Treasury for the entire period of foreign service of 5 years 51 months, i.e., from 02.03.1976 to 31.07.1981, which has been deposited. Consequentially, vide letter dated 27.12.1982, respondent no.3 was permanently absorbed in Board’s Service with effect from 01.08.1981. Thereafter, the Page 17 of 32 respondent no. 3 was promoted to the post of Academic Officer Class-I (JB) on 25.09.1990 and retired on attaining the age of Superannuation of 60 years on 31.08.1993. Thereafter, he was paid pension calculating from the date of his absorption, i.e., 01.08.1981 to 31.08.1993, i.e., 10 years and 1 month computing the qualifying service up to the age of 58 years. 11. Needless to mention here, respondent no.3 served on deputation for the period from 02.03.1976 to 31.07.1981 and was continuing in the Government service. For that, Board’s Contribution was also deposited in Government Treasury, as required under the guidelines for employees on deputation joining from foreign service. Thereby, the services of respondent no.3 from 31.07.1953 till 31.07.1981 were in Government Service, out of which he was in Board on deputation from foreign service from 02.03.1976 to 31.07.1981. He was in Government service till he was permanently absorbed on 01.08.1981 in Board. Page 18 of 32 12. In view of the provisions contained in Rule-44 (1)(iii) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, it is made clear that a Government Servant with Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) benefits on permanent absorption in autonomous body, could opt to come under pension scheme, foregoing Government's share in contribution in Provident Fund contribution within one year from the date of his absorption in the autonomous body. Admittedly, respondent no.3 was absorbed on 01.08.1981 and, as such, he had not opted, as per the above stipulation. But that should not preclude him from getting such benefit as it is deemed that he shall receive Contributory Provident Fund for the period he served in Government from the Government. 13. There is no dispute that respondent no.3 from the date of absorption, i.e., 01.08.1981 within one year had not opted to come under qualifying service of the autonomous body by foregoing the Government’s share in C.P.F. In fact, respondent no.3 himself had claimed and represented to Director Secondary Education on Page 19 of 32 22.07.1994 for sanction of pension for the period of 28 years, i.e., from 1953 to 1981. But such representation filed by respondent no.3 was not rejected, rather it was processed. During the course of pursuing for the pension for the period he worked in the State Government, respondent no.3 had also claimed for pension by moving to State Administrative Tribunal. Although, he retired from service in 1993, for the first time, on 01.02.2011, he represented to the Board to pay the differential pension by including the period he served in the past, i.e., past services while calculating pension. The representation was not considered and the decision was communicated on 14.09.2011 as he could claim pension for the said period from the Government. 14. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition page 1134, pension means- “Retirement benefit paid regularly (normally monthly), with the amount of such based generally on length of employment and amount of wages or salary of pensioner. Deferred compensation for service rendered.” Page 20 of 32 The definition of pension in Article 366 (17) of the Constitution which is in the following words does not bring out its essential features:- “Pension' means a pension, whether contributory or not, of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of any person, and includes retired pay so payable, a gratuity so payable and any sum or sums so payable by way of the return, with or without interest thereon or any other addition thereto, or subscription to a provident fund.” Again, the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 defines pension as including gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradiction to gratuity. But the same rule defines the expression “retirement benefit” as including pension or service gratuity and retirement gratuity where admissible. Hence, the meaning of pension as commonly understood in context of service law that a pension is a periodical payment whereas gratuity is a lump sum payment. It has also been observed by the apex Court in U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 630 as deferred salary. Page 21 of 32 15. In Deokinandan Prasad v State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1409 : (1971) 2 SCC 330, the apex Court held that pension is not a bounty payable at the sweet will and pleasure of the Government. Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in the case of State of W.B. v Haresh C. Banerjee, (2006) 7 SCC 651. 16. In State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry, AIR 1973 SC 534: (1973) 1 SCC 120, the apex Court held that the concept of pension has been repeatedly clarified by the Supreme Court. 17. In All India Revenue Bank Retired Officers Association v Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 767 : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 664, the apex Court held as follows:- “The concept of pension is now well known and has been clarified by this Court time and again. It is not a charity or bounty nor is it gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering long service and is often described as deferred portion of compensation for the past service. It is in fact in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee. Such social security plans are consistent with the socio, economic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.” Page 22 of 32 18. Learned Single Judge, while passing the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 10 of 2019, has taken note of the decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr v. Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari, Civil Appeal No. 399 of 2021, reported in (2021) 1 SCR 694, wherein it has been observed as follows:- the salaries and pensions “The direction for the payment of the deferred is portions of unexceptionable. Salaries are due to the employees of the State for services rendered. Salaries in other words constitute the rightful entitlement of the employees and are payable in accordance with law. Likewise, it is well settled that the payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees of the State.” 19. Similarly, the learned Single Judge has also taken note of the decision rendered by the apex Court in the case of State of Kerala and others v. V. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429; Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P, (1999) 3 SCC 438; and held that salaries and pensions are due as a matter of right to employees, and, as the case may be, to former employees who have served the State. Thereby, respondent no.3, Page 23 of 32 having rendered his services till superannuation as a government servant, his entitlement to the payment of salary is intrinsic to the right to life under Article 21 and to right to property which is recognized by Article 300A of the Constitution. 20. In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 322, referring to Social Security Law by Prof. Harry Culvert, it is stated as follows:- “ ‘Pension’ is paid according to rules which can be said to provide social security law by which it is meant those legal mechanism primarily concerned to ensure the provision for the individual of a cash income adequate, when taken along with the benefits in kind provided by other social services (such as free medical aid) to ensure for him a culturally acceptable minimum standard of living when the normal means of doing so failed.” 21. In State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356, the apex Court observed that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof Page 24 of 32 must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. 22. In Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 10 SCC 148, the apex Court held that pension is not bounty of the State. It is earned by the employee for service rendered to fall back, after retirement. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied. 23. In State of Punjab v. Justice S.S. Dewan, (1997) 4 SCC 569, the apex Court held that conceptually, pension is a reward for past service. It is determined on the basis of length of service and last pay drawn. Length of service is determinative of eligibility and quantum of pension. The same view has also been reiterated in Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P., AIR 1999 SC 1212. 24. In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. K.O. Varghese, (2003) 12 SCC 293, referring to corpus juris secundum, it is stated that the title ‘pension’ includes pecuniary allowances paid periodically by the Government Page 25 of 32 to persons who have rendered services to the public or suffered loss or injury in the public service, or to their representative; who are entitled to such allowances and rate and amount thereof; and proceedings to obtain and payment of such pension. 25. Further, referring to Halsbury’s Law of England 4th Edn. Reissue, Vol.16, in the very same judgment in Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the apex Court held as follows: “‘Pension’ means a periodical payment or lump sum by way of pension, gratuity or superannuation allowance as respects which the secretary of state is satisfied that it is to be paid in accordance with any scheme of arrangement having for its object or one of its objects to make provision in respect of persons serving in particular employments for providing with retirement benefits and, except in the case of such a lump sum which had been paid to the employee.” 26. Considering the meaning attached to the word ‘pension’, as stated above, and on analysis of the same, three things emerge; (i) that the pension is neither bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to the statute, if any, holding the field; (ii) that the pension is not Page 26 of 32 an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is social welfare measure rendering social economic justice to those who in the „hey days‟ of their life ceaselessly toiled for employers on an assurance that in their ripe old age they would not be left in lurch. It must also be noticed that the quantum of pension is a certain percentage correlated to the emoluments earlier drawn. Its payment is dependent upon additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement. 27. In U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 630, the apex Court held that ‘pension’ is treated to be a deferred salary. It is not a bounty. It is akin to right of property. It is correlated and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on date of retirement. 28. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in the case of Sujata Mohanty v Berhampur University Page 27 of 32 & others, 2021 (II) OLR 362, in which one of us (Dr. B.R. Sarangi,ACJ) was the member. 29. Admittedly, respondent no.3, having retired from Board’s service on reaching the age of superannuation with effect from 31.08.1993, is entitled to get full pension from the Board by taking into account the entire service period including the past service of 23 years under the Government and 5 years in the Board on deputation, besides 12 years confirmed service in the Board, which is strictly construed under Regulation 22 of the 1997 Amendment Regulations. Thereby, the Board has committed an error by allowing pension in favour of respondent no.3 taking into the qualifying service of 10 years rendered under the Board till his reaching 58 years on 31.08.1993. 30. Considering from the other angle, if similarly situated persons have already been granted the benefit of full pension, taking into consideration the past service rendered under the Government, the Board cannot Page 28 of 32 discriminate respondent no.3 from that of the similarly situated persons. 31. In Rama Narayan Padhy (supra), this Court directed the appellant Board to take the total period of service of the petitioner to be 39 years, 1 month and 18 days and re-fix his pension along with other retiral benefits from 01.10.1984 and complete the exercise within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment. The direction of this Court was implemented and benefit was extended to the petitioner therein. 32. In the case of Jatindra Nath Mohanty v. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa [W.P.(C) No. 13508 of 2005 disposed of on 24.08.2006], the learned Single Judge had extended the benefit in favour of the petitioner, which was challenged before the Division Bench in W.A. No. 74 of 2006 and this Court vide order dated 17.08.2010, relying on the judgment in the case of Rama Narayan Padhy (supra), confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The order of the Division Bench was Page 29 of 32 also assailed before the apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (CC) No. 302 of 2011 and vide order dated 17.08.2011, the apex Court dismissed the said case. 33. Similarly, one Smt. Bishnupriya Dei had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 25371 of 2011 claiming similar benefit, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 20.08.2013, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rama Narayan Padhy (supra). The said judgment of this Court was also challenged before the apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (CC) No. 22310 of 2013, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.01.2014. 34. In view of the above, there is no iota of doubt that the past service rendered by respondent no.3 has to be taken into consideration for grant of pensionary benefits as admissible to respondent no.3. Thereby denial of the benefit of past service by the appellant cannot be sustained. Hence, the application of respondent no.3 for pro-rata pension from the Government, as prayed for in 1994, became redundant and got merged with the 1997 Page 30 of 32 Regulations with retrospective effect from 01.01.1982 and the decision of the Board-appellant allowing respondent no. 3 to come over to the Pension Scheme of the Board and to consider the cases already decided on the subject lis against the appellant Board has been well taken care of by the learned Single Judge while passing the order impugned. 35. It is undisputed that direction for payment of deferred portion of pension is unexceptionable. Claim for pension for years of past service rendered by respondent no. 3 is a matter of his rightful entitlement recognized by the applicable Regulations, which govern the service of the Board employees. The said proposition has been repeatedly settled by this Court and the apex Court and specific reference in such regard may be made to the decisions of State of Andhra Pradesh & another Vs. Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameshwari, (2021) 11 SCC 543) and D.D. Tiwari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 8 SCC 894). Thus, there is no legal infirmity in the Page 31 of 32 judgment of the learned Single Judge which is sought to be impugned by the appellant. 36. Considering the case from any angle, as mentioned above, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record or any illegality and irregularity committed by the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment dated 20.09.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 10 of 2019 requiring any interference by this Court. As such, the writ appeal merits no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, by confirming the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN, J. I agree. (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Nov-2023 16:47:34 Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 21st November, 2023, Arun Page 32 of 32