Niranjan Rout Vs the Vice Chancellor, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bbsr

Heard Ms. Sujata Jena, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Tarananda Pattanayak, learned counsel appearing for the Utkal University-Opposite Parties.

¶17

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶18

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, issue notice to the 0pp. Parties to show cause as to why the order dated 09.12.2024 under annexure-8 shall not be quashed and if

¶19

Page 1 of 5.

¶20

the 0pp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Hon'ble Court upon hearing the parties may be further pleased to allow this writ Petition in quashing annexure-8 thereby issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writs directing the 0pp. parties to take immediate steps for sanction and release of pension and pensionary benefits within a stipulated time and may be further pleased to pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as may be deemed expedient in the interest of justice.”

¶21

The facts, relevant only to decide the present application, are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Utkal University on 01.04.1990 on consolidated wage basis. The petitioner’s service was ultimately regularized as per order dated 25.07.2023. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on 31.05.2023. Despite rendering more than 30 years of continuous service, the petitioner was not paid pension on the ground that her case would be considered under the new contributory pension scheme dated 13.07.2006 of the Finance Department.

¶22

According to the petitioner, he, having been appointed in the year 1990, should be governed under the provisions of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1977 and his qualifying service ought to have been counted by taking his entire past service into account. Moreover, for the fault of the opposite party-authorities, the petitioner should not be made to suffer inasmuch as despite repeated orders passed by this Court in different writ applications as also the Supreme Court, the authorities took as long as 33 years to regularize the services of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be

¶23

Page 2 of 5.

¶24

deprived of his legitimate right to pension under the Odisha Pension Rules.

¶25

The stand of the University is that the matter of pension was referred to the Government, as petitioner’s emoluments were being paid from out of the grant sanctioned by the Government. Accordingly, on 10.10.2012, the Government in the Department of Higher Education, while concurring with the proposal for regularization of the services of 15 (fifteen) employees, including the petitioner, observed that necessary payment of salary and other allowances shall be made to the said employees by the University from its own resources without any financial burden on Government in future. It was further stipulated that the salary/other dues shall not be part of annual block grant sanctioned by the Government.

¶26

During the year 2024, the Registrar of the University allowed the salary and other allowances to the petitioner may be paid from the University’s own resources without any financial burden on the Government.

¶27

From the foregoing narrations and the stand taken by the Government, this Court finds that there is nothing left for adjudication in the writ application inasmuch as admittedly, the petitioner was appointed way back in the year 1990, but his services were regularized on the basis of the order dated 10.10.2012 of the Government. Basing on the Government order, the University passed an order on 25.07.2023 specifically mentioning therein that the services of the petitioner are regularized as Junior Assistant with effect from 01.04.1990 in the prevalent scale of pay.

¶28

In view of the specific order quoted above, the petitioner must be deemed to have been a regular employee of the University from

¶29

Page 3 of 5.

¶30

01.04.1990. To such extent therefore, he would be entitled to pension as per the rules applicable to such employees, namely, the Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992. Such being the case, the University obviously cannot take a stand that the financial resources towards salary and other allowances, including pension, are to be provided by the Government. In fact, the Government has made it clear that the University can meet these expenses from its own resources. Since this is a case concerning a regular employee of the University, he cannot obviously be deprived of his legitimate pensionary dues by the University on the ground that his salary and other emoluments are dependent on the grant sanctioned by the Government from time to time. It is needless to mention that once he becomes a regular employee, it is for the University to meet the expenses towards his salary and other allowances.

¶31

It is a matter of concern that the petitioner, after rendering more than three decades of regular service to the University, retired on superannuation on 31.05.2023 without being granted pension and pensionary benefits. More than three years have passed in the meantime and yet he is deprived of his legitimate dues towards pension and pensionary benefits. It is well settled that pension, not being a gratis, cannot be withheld without any justified reason.

¶32

This Court, after going through the materials available on record and in particular, the communications between the University authorities and the Government, finds no justified reason for the University to have deprived the petitioner from his pension and pensionary benefits.

¶33

For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ application is allowed. The University authorities are directed to pass necessary

¶34

Page 4 of 5.

¶35

orders to sanction and disburse the pension and other pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner, as per the provisions of the Odisha Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992, without any further delay and in any case, not later than one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. Furthermore, taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties-University, it is directed that in the event any approval is sought for from the Finance Department, Govt. of Odisha, the said Department shall take necessary steps as expeditiously as possible to grant such approval, preferably within a period of two weeks.

¶36

(A.K. Mohapatra)

Judge

Rubi

Page 5 of 5.

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 01-May-2026 11:28:56

Niranjan Rout v. the Vice Chancellor, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Rout v. the Vice Chancellor, Utkal University, Vani Vihar, Bbsr

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

Rekha Routh Vs State of Odisha

Deepak Digar Vs State of Odisha

Bijay Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Kshirod Chandra Patri Vs State of Odisha

Suman Samal Vs State of Odisha

Nirmala Karmi @ Nirmal Karmi Vs State of Odisha