Ajay Kumar Giri Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ajay Kumar Giri Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal with all contentions kept open; the Tribunal is requested to expeditiously consider the case in accordance with law. No substantive direction on pensionary benefits was issued.

Issue for consideration

Whether the grievance concerning counting of the petitioner's past service as an Assistant Teacher in a State Government School (5.12.1998 to 6.2.2009) for pro-rata pension and other terminal benefits on retirement from Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is entertainable by the High Court, or must be worked out before the Central Administrative Tribunal under Sections 14 & 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. +1 more

Court's answer

The grievance of the kind raised by the petitioner should be worked out before the Central Administrative Tribunal, as per Sections 14 & 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with the Supreme Court's interpretation in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India; this is stated to be the consistent view of several High Courts and no exception to the general norm is made out.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal with all contentions kept open; if approached, the Tribunal is requested to expeditiously consider the case in accordance with law. The merits of the pension-counting claim were not decided by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.16652 of 2023, Orissa High Court, Dixit Krishna Shripad J., order dated 16.09.2025) — Counting of past service — Pro-rata pension — Petitioner, who served as an Assistant Teacher in a State Government School (SME Department) from 5.12.1998 to 6.2.2009 and joined Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 07.02.2009 where he continues, prayed for quashing of the order dated 5.4.2023 (Annexure-5) and for a direction to count his State-school service towards pro-rata pension and other pensionary benefits on retirement from KVS. The State and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan opposed, drawing attention to Sections 14 & 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125, to contend the grievance should be worked out before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Holding that no exception was made out to the general norm, the High Court disposed of the petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal with all contentions kept open, requesting expeditious disposal in accordance with law. Merits of the claim left undecided.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16652 of 2023

Ajay Kumar Giri

Petitioner

Mr.G.R. Sethi, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others

…. Opp.Parties

Mr.S.K.Jee, AGA for O.Ps.1 & 2 Mr.Hrusikesh Tripathy, Advocate for O.Ps.3 & 4

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ORDER

Order No.

16.09.2025

07 .

The petitioner has structured his prayer as under:-

“i. To quash the order dated 5.4.2023 under Annexure-5;

ii. To direct the opposite parties to grant/release the pro-rata pension and other pensionary benefits against the service rendered by the petitioner in SME Department as an Asst. Teacher w.e.f. 5.12.1998 to 6.2.2009 for counting of his past service in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that during the period between 5.12.1998 and 6.02.2009, the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher in the State Government School, and that under the normative procedure this period needs to be reckoned for the purpose of terminal benefits like pension, etc., after his retirement from the service of Kendriya Vidyalaya, which he joined on 07.02.2009 wherein he has been still working. Learned counsel further submits that non-counting of his State School service would adversely affect his terminal benefits when he retires from the Kendriya Vidyalaya and therefore, a direction be given to the opposite parties to do the needful.

Page 1 of 2

Learned AGA appearing for the State & its officials and the panel counsel for Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan oppose the petition drawing attention of the Court to Sections 14 & 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as has been interpreted by Apex Court in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India , AIR 1997 SC 1125 to the effect that the grievance of the kind should be worked out before the Central Administrative Tribunal. That appears to be the consistent view of several High Courts. No exception is made out to the general norm.

In the above circumstances, petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal keeping open all contentions. If the petitioner approaches, the Tribunal is requested to expeditiously consider the case in accordance with law.

Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

Basu

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 18-Sep-2025 11:13:33

Page 2 of 2