Disposed

Prabir Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Apr 2022WP(C)/34422/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chief Justice R.K. Pattanaik held that the earlier order in Anand Dash v. State of Odisha applies to all petitioners. Consequently, the court directed that old pension rules be made applicable, rejected the government's refusal, and quashed the rejection order dated 6 August 2021.

What did the court decide?

The rejection order dated 06.08.2021 was quashed and the old pension rules were made applicable to the petitioners.

Prabir Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos. 30957 of 2021

¶2

along with W.P.(C) Nos. 6725, 20596, 27190 and 34422 of 2021

¶3

W.P.(C) No.30957 of 2021
Rupesh Kumar Biswal …. Petitioner
-versus-
….
State of Odisha and Others Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.6725 of 2021
Manas Kumar Nayak and Others …. Petitioners
-versus-
….
State of Odisha and Others Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.20596 of 2021
Banchhanidhi Naik …. Petitioner
-versus-
….
State of Odisha and Others Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.27190 of 2021
Prasanta Kumar Mallick …. Petitioner
-versus-
….
State of Odisha and Others Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.34422 of 2021
Prabir Kumar Mishra and Others …. Petitioners
-versus-
….
State of Odisha and Others Opposite Parties
Advocates, appeared in these cases:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Sanjib Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Muduli
Addl. Govt. Advocate

¶4

Page 1 of 3

¶5

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

19.04.2022

The only reason why the Petitioners have not been given the benefits is explained in para 8 of the counter affidavit of opposite Party No.5 in W.P.(C) No.27190 of 2021, in the following manner:

¶11

“8. …..In response, Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha, Home Department vide letter No.1705 dated 20.01.2022 while conveying and basing upon the observation of the Finance Department has intimated that it is not possible to grant the benefit of inclusion of the services in the pensionable establishment under the provisions of O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992 and deduction of G.P.F. amount under the G.P.F.(O) Rules, 1938 in favour of the aforesaid four employees of the Orissa High Court, since, they have not in their favour any judicial order for making the old pension Rules applicable in their case or for consideration of their case citing the earlier order.”

¶12

It is clarified that the judicial order earlier passed in W.P.(C) No.15433 of 2012 ( Anand Dash v. State of Odisha) will be made applicable to all the present Petitioners as well. Consequently, the same direction will stand issued in these petitions.

¶13

The rejection order dated 6^th August, 2021 (Annexure-5) challenged in W.P.(C) No.30957 of 2021 is hereby quashed.

¶14

Page 2 of 3

¶15

The writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

¶16

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

¶17

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

¶18

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶19

S.K. Jena/Secy.

¶20

Page 3 of 3

Prabir Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabir Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naba Ghana Bhoi Vs Govt. of Odisha,Revenue Dept.

State Vs Krushna Ch.Sahoo

Utkal University Vs Santilata Biswal

Chandrabhanu Nayak Vs Union of India

State Vs Akhaya Ku.Mallick

Kamal Chakraborti Vs State of Odisha