Disposed

Surendra Kishore Rout v. the Chief Executive Officer Tpcold., Khurda

Orissa HC24 Sept 2025WP(C)/2405/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Batch of writ petitions challenged the amendment to Rule 7 extending restoration of commuted pension from 12 to 15 years. The Court held petitioners not aggrieved since their commutation orders themselves stipulated 15-year restoration; the proper challenge was to those original orders. Writ petitions disposed of with liberty to challenge the original commutation orders; interim orders vacated.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to challenge original commutation orders; interim orders vacated.

Surendra Kishore Rout Vs the Chief Executive… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 13237 of 2025 WP(C) Nos. 13237, 2405, 5324, 5605, 5830, 6628, 6782, 7087, 8101, 8203, 8574, 8581, 9967, 10652, 10836, 11085, 11110, 11183, 12806, 12810, 12811, 12924, 14298, 14338, 14757, 14872, 15895, 16831, 16842, 16847, 16851, 16909, 17062, 17913, 17927, 17932, 18420, 18871, 19187, 19210, 19211, 19791, 19794, 19968, 19982, 20593, 21795, 23389, 24939 & 25152 of 2025

¶2

*Rabinarayan Das & Ors.*	..... -versus-	*Petitioners* Mr. A.K. Jena, Advocate
*The Chairman-cum-Managing*	.....	*Opposite Parties*
*Director, Odisha Power*		Mr. B.K. Dash, Advocate
*Transmission Corporation Ltd.* *(OPTCL), BBSR & Anr.*		(OPTCL) Mr. L.K. Moharana, Advocate (TPCODL & TPNODL)

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶5

24.09.2025

¶6

Order No. 04

¶7

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶8

Heard Mr. A.K. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners along with other learned counsels appearing in the present batch of writ petitions on behalf of the Petitioners, Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the OPTCL in a batch of writ petitions and Mr. L.K. Maharana, learned counsel appearing for TPCODL & TPNODL in another batch of writ petitions.

¶9

Even though all these writ petitions have been filed inter alia with the prayer that they are aggrieved by the stipulation inserted by virtue of amendment to Rule 7 of the Odisha Civil Services (Commutation

¶10

Page 1 of 2.

¶11

of Pension) Amendment Rules, 2015, by which the word 12 years earlier reflected in Rule 7 was made 15 years for restoration of the commuted value of pension, but it is found that while extending the benefit of commuted value of pension vide orders issued by the Corporation as well as by TATA Power, it was clearly indicated in those orders that the original pension will be restored after 15 years.

¶12

In view of such stipulation contained in the order allowing commuted value of pension, it is the view of this Court that Petitioners are no way aggrieved by the amendment carried to Rule 7 of the Rules. If Petitioners are of the view that commuted value of pension is required to be restored after 12 years and not after 15 years, then order allowing such benefit of commuted pension has to be challenged.

¶13

Since in none of the writ petitions the order allowing commuted pension is under challenge, it is the view of this Court that the writ petition with the challenge as made is not entertainable.

¶14

Accordingly, the present batch of writ petitions stand disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioners to challenge the original order passed by the Corporation and/or TPCODL/TPNODL allowing commuted value of pension in favour of the Petitioners.

¶15

With the aforesaid liberty, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. Interim order passed stand vacated.

¶16

Photo copy of the order be placed in the connected case records.

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Sneha Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:58:34

¶20

Page 2 of 2.

Surendra Kishore Rout v. the Chief Executive Officer Tpcold., Khurda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kishore Rout v. the Chief Executive Officer Tpcold., Khurda

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

Purusottam Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Batakrushna Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Debanath Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Aparna Nayak Vs Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Berhampur

Saroj Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Dhruba Charan Swain Vs the Ceo, Tpcodl, Bbsr