Allowed

Union of India v. Raja@Rajkishor Parid

Orissa HC14 Sept 2021WP(C)/4704/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition and set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed pensionary benefits calculation for a respondent who admitted breaks in service and did not meet the mandatory ten years service requirement, raising legal issues regarding the validity of the direction.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No.402 of 1998 is set aside, and the writ petition is allowed.

Union of India Vs Raja@Rajkishor Parid — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4704 of 2003

¶2

Union of India and Others

¶3

…. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Abhijit Pal, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Raja @ Rajkishore Parida and others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

Order No.

14.09.2021

The present petition has been filed against an order dated 11^th October, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No.402 of 1998 filed by Opposite Party No.1.

¶15

At the outset it is noticed that despite service of notice on Opposite Party No.1 none appears today.

¶16

By the impugned order the Tribunal appears to have directed the present Petitioners that the pensionary benefits of the Respondent No.1 should be calculated by reckoning so much of his earlier service “even if there had been breaks in his employment, so as to make him eligible for pension”.

¶17

As pointed out by Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the above direction has been issued despite the Tribunal noting in para 5 of the impugned order that from the record it is evident that Respondent No.1 did not satisfy the basic requirement of ten years of service for getting pension. The

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

Tribunal after noting the above fact proceeded to observe that no reason has been given by the present Petitioners for not allowing Respondent No.1 to work continuously and why temporary status was not given to him earlier and why he was not given conformation of temporary status earlier.

¶21

Once it was clear that Respondent No.1 did not satisfy the basic requirement of ten years of service for eligibility for pension, the question of a mandamus being issued to the present Petitioners to treat the period served by Respondent No.1, despite his admitting that there had been breaks in service, cannot be sustained in law.

¶22

In that view of the matter the impugned order of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No.402 of 1998 is set aside.

¶23

The writ petition is allowed in the above circumstances.

¶24

An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶25

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

¶26

( B.P. Routray)

¶27

Judge

¶28

M.K. Panda

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Union of India v. Raja@Rajkishor Parid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Raja@Rajkishor Parid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suryamani Mallik Vs State of Orissa

Jagannath Mishra Vs Commnr.Consolidn.

Surendra Sunani Vs I.I.C.Sambalpur

Ajaya Kumar Jena Vs O.a.Tribunal

Baripadaspinningmill Vs State

Balkrishna Das Vs State