Dismissed¶23

Karunakar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC6 Apr 2026WA/366/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karunakar Nayak v. State of Odisha, WA No.366 of 2026 (High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, 06.04.2026). Keywords: compassionate appointment; Old Pension Rules of 1992; New Pension Rules of 2005; Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992; date of appointment vs date of application; relation back doctrine rejected; delay and laches; service jurisprudence; Single Bench order dated 30.10.2025 upheld; writ appeal dismissed without costs. Useful for propositions that pension rights flow from the date of appointment and that a pending pre-amendment compassionate-appointment application does not confer entitlement under superseded pension rules.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeal was dismissed as sans merit, all pending interlocutory application(s) stand disposed of, and there is no order as to costs. ¶23

Karunakar Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ appeal was dismissed as sans merit, all pending interlocutory application(s) stand disposed of, and there is no order as to costs.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, whose application for compassionate appointment predated the New Pension Rules of 2005 but who was appointed only in 2006, is entitled to pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Rules of 1992, with his appointment relating back to the date of the application. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The right to receive pension emanates from the date of appointment and not from any date anterior thereto.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since the appellant was appointed in 2006, after the New Pension Rules of 2005 (intervening by amendment to the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992) superseded the Old Pension Rules of 1992, it is not open to him to claim benefit under the Old Pension Rules of 1992 merely because his compassionate-appointment application predated the 2005 rules and remained pending; his appointment does not relate back to the date of the application.

¶19

Key takeaways

Accepting the contention that a pending pre-2005 compassionate-appointment application entitles the appointee (appointed in 2006) to Old Pension Rules benefits would be opposed to the fundamental principles of service and to service jurisprudence; the claim is unsustainable.ratio¶20
On the Court's reading, the impugned order did not dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, contrary to the impression of the appellant's counsel.ratio¶16
No infirmity or illegality is found in the ultimate decision taken by the Single Bench in the impugned order; accordingly the writ appeal, being sans merit, is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (WA No.366 of 2026, decided 06.04.2026, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Harish Tandon, CJ and M.S. Raman, J.) — Compassionate appointment; pension entitlement. The appellant applied for appointment on compassionate ground before the New Pension Rules of 2005 (introduced by amendment to the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, superseding the Old Pension Rules of 1992) came into force, but was appointed only in 2006. Held: the right to receive pension emanates from the date of appointment, not from any anterior date; since the appointment post-dated the 2005 New Pension Rules, the appellant could not claim benefits under the Old Pension Rules of 1992 on the strength of his earlier pending application, nor did his appointment relate back to the application date — such a contention being opposed to fundamental principles of service and service jurisprudence. The Single Bench's order dated 30.10.2025 dismissing the writ petition was found free of infirmity (the Court clarifying it did not rest on delay and laches). Writ appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.366 of 2026

¶2

…. Karunakar Nayak Appellant

¶3

Mr. A. Swain, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

…. Respondents Mr. Saswat Das, AGA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

06.04.2026

The instant writ appeal arises from an order dated 30^th October, 2025, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant stood dismissed on the premise that the claim so raised cannot be considered after gap of so many years.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant perceived the said order that the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, but in fact the appellant approached this Court within a close proximity of time, i.e., two years prior to the filing of the said writ petition and, therefore, cannot dismiss the said petition on such score.

¶16

Our reading of the impugned order does not percolate such impression as gathered by the learned counsel for the appellant. The order of the authority disposing of the representation was assailed in the said writ petition. The claim that the appellant would come under the Old Pension

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

Rules of 1992 was raised after a long gap and in the meantime the New Pension Rules intervenes. The authority, therefore, held that the appellant is not entitled to any benefit germinating from the Old Pension Rules of 1992.

¶19

The entire gamut of dispute revolves around the lapses and laches on the part of the authority in processing and/or dealing with an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The application was filed by the appellant, but ultimately the appellant was appointed in the year 2006. The right to receive pension should emanate from the date of an appointment and not from a date anterior thereto. If the appointment is made in the year 2006 and in the meantime the New Pension Scheme by way of amendment to the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 has intervened in the year 2005, which supersedes the Old Pension Rules of 1992, it is not open to the appellant to claim the benefit under the Old Pension Rules of 1992 as the application for compassionate appointment was made prior to coming into force of the New Pension Rules in the year 2005 and remained pending, and, therefore, his appointment would relate back to the date of the said application.

¶20

Such contention if accepted, would be opposed to the fundamental principles of service and is opposed to service jurisprudence. Since the appointment is made after the New Pension Rules of 2005 came into effect, the claim of the appellant that he is entitled to the benefit under the Old

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

Pension Rules of 1992 on the premise that the application for appointment on compassionate ground was pending, is unsustainable. Thus, we do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the ultimate decision taken by the Single Bench in the impugned order.

¶23

Accordingly, the appeals, sans merit, is dismissed. As a result of disposal of the writ appeal, all pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶25

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶26

MRS/Laxmikant

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Apr-2026 16:35:46

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Karunakar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karunakar Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganga Shankar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Sawmyadip Chakrabarty Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Esl Steel Ltd.,Sundergarh Vs Union of India

Buddhimanta Sahoo Vs Union of India

Kumar Pradipta Sahoo Vs the Additional Ct and GST Officer, Dhenkanal Circle

Biranchi Narayan Parija Vs State of Odisha