The Orissa High Court, applying recent binding precedents of a Division Bench and the Supreme Court, reaffirms that prior service under job contract establishments does not entitle State Government employees in Odisha to pensionary benefits unless rules or policies provide otherwise; previous orders granting such relief are set aside. This decision upholds and applies the prevailing precedent, and serves as binding authority for lower courts and tribunals in similar cases involving public employment and pension claims.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/1133/2022 of STATE OF ODISHA Vs ABHIMANYU MISHRA CNR ODHC010560452022 |
| Date of Registration | 24-08-2022 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Justice K.R. Mohapatra, Justice Savitri Ratho |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: Justice K.R. Mohapatra, Justice Savitri Ratho |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts and tribunals in Odisha |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law (Pension and Pensionary Benefits), Public Employment |
| Questions of Law | Whether service rendered in a job contract establishment is to be counted towards pensionary benefits for State Government employees in Odisha. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that service rendered under a job contract establishment is not to be counted for pension/pensionary benefits when rules and State policy do not so provide. The court followed its own recent Division Bench decision and the Supreme Court’s binding ruling in Sudhansu Sekhar Jena. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court emphasized the distinction between judicial review and policy decisions, the judiciary’s respect for State policy under the doctrine of separation of powers, and followed the Supreme Court’s directions regarding costs for delayed filings. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The writ petitioner (Respondent No.1) sought counting of past service in job contract establishment for pensionary benefits. The learned Single Judge had allowed this based on earlier precedent. The State appealed, relying on recent Division Bench and Supreme Court decisions. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals in Odisha |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; notice to lawyers handling service and pension matters nationwide |
| Overrules | Order dated 3rd January, 2022 in WPC (OAC) No. 1601 of 2007 (and similar prior single bench decisions to the extent inconsistent with Division Bench/Supreme Court) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that job contract service cannot be counted towards pension/pensionary benefits in the absence of statutory provision or policy by the State.
- Even where specific reliefs were earlier granted for similar claims, these stand reviewed and set aside in light of binding Division Bench and Supreme Court rulings.
- High Court has clarified the judiciary’s limited scope to interfere with policy decisions regarding pensionary benefit rules, respecting the principle of separation of powers.
- Payment of substantial costs by the State for delay is to be made only where so directed due to inordinate delay, not as a matter of right in every case.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that the earlier order of the learned Single Judge had relied on previous decisions granting similar relief.
- The appellants (State of Odisha) cited the subsequent Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 17 of 2023 (Krushna Chandra Mallick), which held that contract employees are not entitled to regularization or pensionary benefits absent enabling policy, and further distinguished between Government policy decisions and judicial intervention.
- The Supreme Court in State of Odisha & Ors v. Sudhansu Sekhar Jena (SLP(C) No. 2146/2024 batch) affirmed that absent rules/policy, contract service cannot be counted for pension, and imposed costs on the State only where the appeals were filed belatedly.
- The Orissa High Court observed that the present respondent was similarly situated to others whose writ petitions were dismissed as a batch, and that extending previous orders would be discriminatory.
- The court held that as the delay in filing the present writ appeal was already condoned upon payment of Rs. 10,000 costs, the Supreme Court’s higher costs for delay were not attracted to this case.
- Accordingly, the learned Single Judge’s order was set aside, and the writ petition dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (State of Odisha):
- Cited the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 17 of 2023, holding contract service should not be counted towards pension.
- Argued the respondent stands on similar footing to employees whose claims have been dismissed in the recent batch of cases.
- Sought setting aside of the Single Judge order and dismissal of writ petition in light of binding precedents.
Respondent (Abhimanyu Mishra):
- Submitted that in Sudhansu Sekhar Jena (SLP batch), the Supreme Court directed the State to pay costs of Rs. 1,50,000 to employees for belated filings.
- Submitted that if appeal is to be allowed, respondent should be awarded similar costs.
Factual Background
The respondent, an employee of the State of Odisha, filed an application seeking the counting of prior service rendered in a job contract establishment for pension and pensionary benefits. After abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to and decided by the High Court. The Single Judge had earlier allowed the petition, relying on an earlier similar judgment. The State appealed, citing recent Division Bench and Supreme Court judgments refusing such relief.
Statutory Analysis
- The court dealt with rules/policy on pensionary entitlement for public employees in Odisha, holding that the judiciary is bound by the express terms of such rules unless successfully challenged.
- Emphasis was placed on the distinction between regularization/absorption and policy decisions, and on the court’s limited jurisdiction to interfere with policy unless arbitrariness/unconstitutionality is established.
- The principle of separation of powers, cited from Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, was reaffirmed in the context of judicial review of executive policy on service benefits.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions; the order is per curiam (unanimous).
Procedural Innovations
The court noted that costs for delay imposed by the Supreme Court in Sudhansu Sekhar Jena applied only to cases with exceptional delay in approaching appellate forums; accordingly, no additional cost was granted where the High Court had already condoned delay on payment of lesser cost.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision specifically and expressly follows recent Division Bench and Supreme Court binding precedent on the same legal question.